[MD] Quantum Physics

[Laird Bedore]

>
>>> Dan:
>>> Please explain how my comment is a tautology.
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> Laird:
>> Your comment is a statement of evident fact. "Science is based on
>> falsification" - yes, by definition of falsification. Attempts at
>> science which do not adopt falsification are pseudoscience. Thus science
>> can only be science if it adopts falsification. On the MoQ, it was born
>> through the process of falsification against the question "Is quality in
>> the subject or in the object?". It's like saying I must have a
>> biological mother because I'm human (yup, it's a requirement of
>> reproduction!). Circular truth, like the identity property of
>> mathematics, is the case of "A implies A" in boolean logic: tautology.
>>     
>
> Dan:
> A statement of evident fact!?! (After I had to explain the concept to you!) 
> Okay. Have it your way. I guess hindsight is always 20/20.
>
>   
Laird:
I well understood the concept already - you were applying a very 
specific scientific concept to a philosophical discussion through the 
use of a very conventional word. I hope you can appreciate that the word 
"falsification" has other definitions that may also fit the discussion.

Email is indeed a challenging way to communicate.

>> Laird:
>> If you're planning on using falsification outside the confines of
>> science, the above is tremendously important. Falsification is a tool
>> focused on the tasks of science, and using it outside of those confines
>> requires that special care be taken. It's like using a screwdriver to
>> mount a tire to a wheel - yeah, it can be done, but compared to using a
>> tire spoon you've got to be really careful not to puncture the tire or
>> scratch up the rim.
>>     
>
> Dan:
> No plans really. I mentioned it merely in passing. Some time ago I shared a 
> url with the discussion group to a story about how grand master chess 
> champions use falsification in their games sometimes without even knowing 
> what they're doing. It struck me that Robert Pirsig was doing the same with 
> the MOQ. I found it interesting and thought others might as well. Since the 
> concept is evident fact to you though, I apologise for wasting your time.
>   
Laird:
It is interesting, but it may help to reflect on the falsifiability of 
this very observation. If not careful, you might see the falsifiability 
principle everywhere.


-Laird