Bruno:

according to your (and Marc's?) definition, 
is Hal's work a "TOEandTON"? 
Or would you include Nothing into the relations of
Mind (again: wat is it really?) and reality (same
question really!)?
(I mean: defined in less than 1000 words <G>)

John M

--- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> Le 22-sept.-05, à 06:27, Marc Geddes a écrit :
> 
> > What I'd like is a *logical scaffolding* - a
> *finite* system which is 
> > *universal* in scope - or at least applying
> everywhere in reality 
> > where sentient minds can exist and which explains
> the relationship 
> > between Mind and Reality.    That for me
> is a TOE.  I don't require 
> > that the theory literally explains everything. 
> 
> 
> I agree and I agree with your other statement
> according to which a TOE 
> must explain the relation between mind and reality
> (what most 
> physicalist put under the rug).
> But if there are features of reality not explained
> by the TOE, we still 
> can expect that the TOE will be able to justify---or
> "meta-justify"--- 
> why it cannot explain those features.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to