Re: subjective reality

From: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:47:37 -0400

Dear Bruno and Godfrey,

    It seems to me a proof that YD is false be equivalent to a proof that a
Machine X fails the Turing Test! Is this nonsense about falsifying YD not a
requirement that we prove a negative proposition?


Onward!

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: <kurtleegod.domain.name.hidden>
To: <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Cc: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: subjective reality


> Hi Bruno,
>
> OK. I think we are making progress. I will start the other thread after
> this message
> as I don't really have more obvious divergences from you and you are kind
> enough
> to indulge me in this little diversion. As before I will erase the
> obvious points of
> agreement below...
>
>
> Godfrey Kurtz
> (New Brunswick, NJ)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
> To: kurtleegod.domain.name.hidden
> Cc: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Sent: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:48:06 +0200
> Subject: Re: subjective reality
>
> Hi Godfrey,
>
> Le 18-août-05, à 20:27, kurtleegod.domain.name.hidden a écrit :
> (skipped)
>
> [BM]
> "No YD, no Bruno"!?! You make me anxious :)
>
> [GK]
> I am sorry! That was very callous of me! I really did not mean to imply
> that you would be "eliminated"
> by my argument! Much on the contrary, I am hoping you will be...
> illuminated (;-) !!!
>
> [BM]
> SWE : Schroedinger Wave Equation
> YD: Saying Yes to a doctor who propose you an artificial digital
> "generalized brain". First axiom of comp.
> (Some people complains out-of-line for the acronyms, so I repeat them
> once by mail).
>
>
> > It seems to me that you are weaseling out of it but I don't quite >
> care if you take refuge in another Everett World.
> > That
> > would be a cop out and I am sure you know it. I want you and I >
> digitised IN THIS WORLD! I don't care for copies!
>
> [BM]
> Well: not of copies IN THIS WORLD, I guess. Giving that that is really
> the by-product of saying YES to the DOCTOR (YD).
>
> [GK]
> I would like to leave copies out of the YD because I think those would
> actually invalidate the premise. If you ran into
> a copy of yourself in the street you may suspect that something is amiss
> in your world!
>
> > [GK]
> > I don't much care what you can deduce from COMP, Bruno. I care that
>> COMP=YD+CT+AR and that shooting down YD would
> > shoot down COMP. You could very well deduce from COMP my >
> non-existence if YD is false.
>
>
> Only if YD is *proved* false!!! (I could deduce your inexistence from the
> SWE if any TOE (theory of everything) which supposed SWE true, if SWE is
> false!). You are saying something very general here!
>
> [GK]
> What I propose to do is to show you that your premise, YD, is false. That
> allows me to dismiss anything you say based
> on that premise. That is actually not general at all but extremely
> specific. From here on I will make no comment on
> any sentence you preface with "But from COMP (or YD) I can prove that..."
> . Nothing personal, please understand.
>
>
> > BM: Ouh la la. You are close to the 1004 fallacy (asking for more >
> precise definition than the reasoning itself). At the start you can > use
> the term "axioms", "postulates", "theses", "premises", > "assumptions",
> "hypotheses", etc.. in a similar way.
> >
> > [GK]
> > I think you get my point. I am not asking for precision at all. I am
>> pointing out that thesis and doctrines are not hypotheses
> > tout court. These three "assumptions" do not have the same epistemic
>> status and it is misleading to call them the same.
> > If you don't like it, than acknowledge my pragmatics: if your >
> point-of-view is falsifiable it should be so without compromising > either
> CT and AR which stand very well on their own as you underscore > below:
>
> [BM]
> Mmhhh... This is your opinion, and perhaps mine. But not of most people
> to which my proof is addressed (computer scientist).
>
> [GK]
> Oh I would not worry! Computer scientists are by, now, used to have their
> hopes dashed (;-). And you strike me as a "real
> grown-up" since you are not afraid of facing up to empirical testing!
>
> (skipped)
>
> > [BM]
> > Well, I have decided to put it explicitly, because, in front of my >
> reasoning, some people cop out simply by saying "Ah, but you are a >
> platonist!". So I prefer to say it at once. I agree with you it is a >
> sort of "cop out". Now, although 99,99999999 % of the mathematician > are
> platonist during the week, most like to pretends they are not (the
>> week-end!).
> >
snip
Received on Fri Aug 19 2005 - 16:50:19 PDT