Bruno writes

> > Look, it's VERY simple:  take as a first baby-step the notion
> > that the 19th century idea of a cosmos is basically true, and
> > then add just the Big Bang.  What we then have is a universe
> > that operates under physical laws.  So far---you'll readily
> > agree---this is *very* simple conceptually.
> >
> > Next, look at this picture after 14.7 billion years.  Guess
> > what has evolved?  Finally, there is intelligence and there
> > are entities who can *perceive* all this grandeur.
> >
> > So, don't forget which came first.  Not people.  Not perceptions.
> > Not ideas.  Not dich an sich.  Not 1st person.  Not 3rd person.
> > NOT ANY OF THIS NONSENSE.  Keep to the basics and we *perhaps*
> > will have a chance to understand what is going on.
> But both the quantum facts, and then just the comp hyp are incompatible 
> with that type of naive realism.

At this level of discourse, dear Bruno, I don't give a _______
for your *hypothesis*.

Moreover, please google for "naive realism".  You'll find that this
is the world view of children who have *no* idea of the processes
by which their brains are embedded in physical reality.

Since no one claims to be a naive realist, this rises to the level
of insult. 

But then, I'm not too surprised that the most *basic* understanding
of our world has been forgotten by some who deal everyday with only
the most high level abstractions.


Reply via email to