On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 12:30:26PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It seems to me (oh no, subjectivity!) that believing in an objective 
> reality is doing the same epistemic move as Bruno's belief in 
> arithmetic realism and Godel's Platonism.  Isn't belief in "objective 
> reality" really by definition simply saying that there's something 
> CAUSING ALL of our subjective observations? If there is no objective 
> reality, then it begs the question, "Where do all our subjective 
> observations come FROM?" Surely not from other subjective observations, 
> by definition.  If you don't believe in objective reality, then your 
> alternatives are: 1) try to explain repeatability of observations in 
> some weird indirect way and go crazy, or 2) just throw up your hands 
> and be agnostic and give up any motivation for science other than 
> pragmatism, which results in a pretty dismal outcome, the same outcome 
> as the 20th century philosophers: despair.
> Tom Caylor

or 3) explain repeatability as due to the constraints of the Anthropic
Principle. The AP capture what is necessary about an "objective
reality" without acknowledging an actual "objective reality".

I believe the reason behind the AP will come to light with a more
mature theory of consciousness.


*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.

A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics                                    0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         [EMAIL PROTECTED]             
Australia                                http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
            International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02

Attachment: pgpes9sgfXpb8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to