Обговорення:Девід Дойч

Девід Дойч спотворює сенс знання

David Deutsch distorts the meaning of knowledge - he can do better _____________

He distorts mentalese = logic.

He widens the definitions included in the noun knowledge,

but semantics are more important than words.

If specific words mean too many things, they become useless, and we have to use periphrases/periphrastics = phrases to convey meanings/semantics.

_____________

Why knowledge isn't usually (when it's not a brainlike procedure) identical to an ontologically possible physics?

Knowledge isn't a mere physical system.

Knowledge is interacting data within a personhood-yielding computer = brain.

Unretrieved memories aren't knowledge; but they can become.

Memories are sometimes knowledge when activated, but not all memories are deep and/or correct knowledge.

David Deutsch distorts the noun knowledge.

For example he claims that DNA contains knowledge.

Knowledge is data interpreted by a personhood-yielding computer = brain.

The DNA contains data/information and the possibility of proper (mostly chemical, but they can push things thus also general physical) function within compatible systems.

Nature doesn't have knowledge.

Evolution isn't based on nature's conscious knowledge.

see: University of California, Berkeley - misconceptions about evolution

Evolution is based on systems which are partially random and partially "extant due to their functionality"; but each organism has different percentages of functionality versus random variations.

Ontological field mechanics (the ontological reality; not the physical theories of humans) isn't based on knowledge (knowledge requires consciousness, and consciousness a personhood-yielding computer = brain).

Ontological field mechanics is based on constructor theory.

Some mechanisms are ontologically possible either within a context, either by creating a renormalizable self-causal reference; not based on nihilogony/nilogony (creation from nothing itself and its inertness/nonexistence/impossibility; Stephen Hawking was wrong for being a nihilogonist) but based on constructor theory, on struogony (Latin: struo).

When different physical systems share data they don't have conscious knowledge about it.

Physical systems are constructurally possible mechanisms.

They don't have conscious knowledge based on a magically pre-existing uncausal personhood-yielding mind.

Also the processes used by thinking observers to describe physical systems, aren't most of the times the way ontologically physical systems were caused; or self-caused if they're ontologically fundamental.

David Deutsch distorts the English language.

That isn't helpful.

He can do better.