Le 21-mai-05, à 20:32, Lee Corbin a écrit :
> Come on, now. Nobody here, understands what Bruno's done, except
> *maybe* Bruno.
You exaggerate, I think. And you take the risk of mystifying what I
have done, which is far more simple than you imagine.
Of course there is a conceptual difficulty, which is due probably to
the hardness of acknowledging our aristotelian "substancialist"
prejudice. Most today's people take Nature for granted, and they don't
like the idea that there is an "hard problem of matter" (along with a
poblem of consciousness, which is simpler in the frame of comp), nor do
they like the idea that physics could be a "secondary" science, and
*must* be so, in case comp (as I define it) would be true.
It is true that some atheists *hate* my thesis, but this is because
they *do* understand it. They do understand that my argument shows in
a rather definitive way how much atheism is based on dogma which have
nothing to envy to "religious" dogma. Both atheist and catholics hates
agnostic attitude in fundamental matters. To reason in "theology" is
still a taboo. Theology is still in a pre-galilean phase. Science has
not yet really begin I think, and I illustrate it with my thesis.
The technical part makes problem only for the many who didn't get some
basic notion in logic (which is alas not very well taught today). But a
15h course should be enough. Compare to Stephen's Pratts paper, which
presupposes not only non-standard logics, but also category theory, my
work is far much easier.
There is nothing magical in my use of logic: I invite you to read my
SANE paper and ask me ANY question. My work is 100% 3-person sharable,
and it shows only that comp is testable.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Sun May 22 2005 - 03:14:30 PDT