Le 16-août-05, à 04:59, John M a écrit :
> (The original went only to Bruno's addressw)
> To: Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>,
> everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> In-Reply-To:
> <192cbce8ed47e2880d76c87366f5e90a.domain.name.hidden>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> Bruno, your postulate of testability is falling into
> obsolescence.
Thanks John! (I agree that testability should not be an obsession, but
once you get it in a field traditionnally considered has making
untestable propositions , it is hard to resist pointing on the feature,
and also, it is the best way to attract people for many other
scientific community, among the contemplators, for example.
> Proof within the model can be applied
> to testable events within the model.
Logicians make jumps back and forth between theories and models (note
the plural).
> If the model
> proves too narrow, you have to 'assume' beyond and
> 'theorize' beyond the in-model testability. Then,
> later on, you may find indications whether your
> assumed novelty is 'solid' or discardable.
OK.
> Most of the discussions on this list since the early
> 90s are non-testable.
I would add many nuances. Thay are degree of non-testability. Tests can
be indirect, or on some horizon. Tests can address matter of
consistency or necessity.
> I cannot measure the blood
> pressure of the white rabbit or the length of all the
> universes. Hal Ruhl (and myself, not far from his)
> presented some worldview without testable origins.
But it is very hard to prove something is not testable. You need to
anticipate many conclusions of your saying before.
> We should not 'wall in' ourselves into the existing
> framework of a testable ambiance if we want to think
> further.
We should not wall ourself. Comma.
> Justifiability is another question, but it
> can be raised later on.
> The same may apply to the 'screening' by human logic
> (formal or not) and we have plenty of examples on this
> list when human logic was not applied as a liiting
> model.
Take Lobian logics. (I am joking, partially ;)
> I would not restrict nature (te wholeness) to
> anything we can muster in our capabilities.
No. But my point is that if we just take digital mechanism seriously
enough then, necessarily, the observable wholeness emerges from what
lobian machines can dream about their capacities.
The beauty of it, is that, continuing assuming comp after that
reversal, it can be shown that it is NOT a restriction of Nature or of
Whatever. By incompleteness, to believe it is a restriction, is a lack
of modesty in front of the unknown (assuming comp!!!).
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Wed Aug 17 2005 - 13:10:05 PDT