[Fis] I do not understand some strange claims

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear Arturo, dear FISers,


On 08 Nov 2017, at 22:11, tozziarturo at libero.it wrote:

> Dear FISers,
>
> science talks about observables, i.e., quantifiable parameters.

I can't agree more. Science measure numbers, and infer relations among  
them. But we know also that untestable ideas can be powerful tool.  
Most progress in mathematics and physics have relied on the axiom of  
infinity in mathematics, or belief in a physical reality. So let us be  
precise that indirect testing should be allowed.




>
> Therefore, describing the word "information" in terms of  
> philosophers' statements, hypothetical useless triads coming from  
> nowhere, the ridicolous Rupert Sheldrake's account, mind  
> communication,

I can understand up to here.



> qualitative subjective issues of the mind, inconclusive  
> phenomelogical accounts with an hint of useless husserlian claims,  
> and such kind of amenities is simply: NOT scientific.

Hmm... I disagree. This is NOT scientific. A reasoning which takes  
into account the "qualitative issues of the mind" (which is rather  
normal when we discuss information in some larger sense than Shannon  
one) MIGHT (and SHOULD) have observable quantitative consequences. You  
talk like if that was impossible, without providing an argument, which  
would be refuted by my contribution. Even point in "theology" becomes  
testable, when the definitions and reasonings are made clear and  
precise enough (which is the case when we use the suitable hypothesis  
to do just that.

Here it seems to me that you throw out the baby with the water bath.  
You seem to ask for direct testability, which is close to metaphysical  
positivism (which has been logically refuted).




> It could be interesting, if you are a magician or a follower of  
> Ermetes Trismegistus, but, if you are (or you think to be) a   
> scientist, this is simply not science.


It is science if it leads to a simpler theory fitting with the  
quantitative facts, or a more complex theory, being alone to fit some  
known quantitative facts.
But of course, such theories should not deny known and admitted  
psychological realities;   if not "information" itself stops to make  
any larger sense than the  one in the theory of Shannon or of Feynman- 
Deutsch-Landauer-Zurek. In that case we might suspect the widespread  
confusion between physics, and metaphysical physicalism, which is not  
scientific.

When working on "information", a theory fitting with the quantitative  
facts, but not with "common" qualitative facts should be considered  
unscientific, because it denies undoubtable and important aspect of  
information and reality. It hides data.



> Such claims are dangerous, because they are the kind of claims that  
> lead to NO-VAX movements, religious stuff in theoretical physics,  
> Heideggerian metapyhsics.  Very interesting, but NOT science.


You might go a bit far on this. If you deny the use of the scientific  
method on the religious terrain, you condemn that domain to remain in  
the realm of the superstition. Also, some people talk like if the  
existence of primary matter was a scientific fact: this too is  
unscientific. If we want related information and reality, I doubt we  
can progress if we don't try to make clear the metaphysical  
assumptions. When clear enough, as my work illustrated, they become  
quantitatively testable. It is just an historical accident that  
theology has been separated from science, and we know that the goal  
was to prevent research and use only violence and argument per- 
authority. There is no reason to pursue that way. We must just ask  
politely people to indicate how their ideas can be tested, directly or  
indirectly, in case it is not clear.

Best Regards,

Bruno




>
> That's all: 'nuff said.
>
> Arturo Tozzi
>
> AA Professor Physics, University North Texas
>
> Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy
>
> Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba
>
> http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20171110/13d31a3a/attachment.html>