I give here Brett Hall message to the FOR list because I mentionned it in a "interfering post". Bruno
=============================== Just to be caviling... Marchal wrote: > > Gordon wrote: > > >[Gordon]I think what I was getting at was how Humans get this not Comp > >however I know where you are coming from but I think you have put your > >self into a corner because it is hard to prove your right? > > You know where I am coming from? Where I am coming from? > [Gordon]How do you prove the Non Physical? [Brett] How do you *prove* the physical? It was only a few months ago that this forum hosted the debate about whether one can be a strict fallibalist or not. Whether you are a strict or less-strict fallibalist, it seems difficult to 'prove' the existence of the physical. Unless your concept of proof is an attenuated one - like, for example "If I can see it, it must exist." (I don't buy that, however). Anyone who agrees with the precept 'something must exist, because something thinks' (a modified cogito) has demonstrated the existence of something - but I'm not sure if that something is physical or not. Proof, in the sense that it leads to necessary truth, is not the philosophical device we use to establish that something exists. Not proof, but evidence and reasoning gets us there. We should each be able to 'prove' to ourselves that 'something' exists (most might argue that they can demonstrate the proposition 'I exist') - but, I think, that's where the chain ends. We can't get from there to 'the physical world must exist. qed." Brett.
