From: Samantha Atkins (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Aug 14 2004 - 12:50:28 MDT
On Aug 14, 2004, at 3:11 AM, Marc Geddes wrote:
> Samantha, reasoning does not have to be hierarchical.
> Popper's scientific method which was extended by
> Bartley into Pan-Critical Rationalism is much broader
> than just axiomatic reasoning.
No, it doesn't have to be hierarchical. However, you presented a
hierarchical system replete with claims that latter parts were built on
the foundation of former ones.
> See Max More's very good article on this for instance:
>> BTW, the Universal Turing machine does not in the
>> least "suggest that
>> all of reality is entirely computational" in the
>> sense you are
>> reaching for.
>> More later if I feel inclined to wade into this.
>> - s
> Here is what I said:
> "But since the entire physical world is described by
> mathematical equations, Turing's conception of a
> 'Universal Turing Machine' (the general purpose
> computer) suggests that all of reality is entirely
> computational, in the sense that any finite part of
> reality can be simulated by a general purpose
The UTM theory is about the equivalence of computational devices.
What is wrong in the above is taking the authority of Turing for your
own notion of reality being entirely computational. Since, to the best
of my knowledge, Turing never said such a thing, this is inappropriate
and a rather imho a rather shabby argumentative ploy. It is worst
than an argument from authority.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:48 MDT