Activity

Okay, it looks like, counter-argumenting isn't enough to make a more interesting model by eliminating contradictions, let's try to find a common ground constructively, and use them as a fruitful source of improvement possibilities, I hope you do not perceive my, a bit informal way of express counter-arguments, personally, but as a valuable opportunity to test and improve worldview, as so do I, or just because of curiosity, anyway there's no reason to protect any fragile theory, except for a practice and for a cognitive workout purpose. So, back to the point: how your worldview model deals with Kuhn's stance of epistemic's non-monotonic nature? Do you have some formal semantic/logic in mind? Intuitionistic/nonmonotonic/relevance/modal, in particular epistemic/doxastic/temporal logics? There's pretty interesting matching and reachability logics: http://www.matching-logic.org . The https://cis.temple.edu/~pwang/NARS-Intro.html model looks promising. But there's a lot of opportunities to improve/overcome computation complexity issues (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_explosion), and probably re-imagining, what computers are -- could be the key (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer). I agree with the take that only proofs counts which possible to run on the computer. But at the end, any computer or any person -- are just phenomenons at reality, not available for the direct observation and verification, so, after all, at the end -- it's all just vibes around the silent essence.