[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 2:54 PM
> Subject: Re: A calculus of personal identity
> 
> 
> 
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>>Le 01-juil.-06, à 19:54, Brent Meeker a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>>>Sure it is.  Just because something cannot be directly experienced
>>>doesn't rule it out of a
>>>scienctific model: quarks can't be observed, but their effects can.
>>
> Brent:
> what gives you the right to "assume" a non experienceable quark as
> described,
> and 'assign' some observation (rather: math. conclusion) to "IT"?
> Only after eliminating ALL (possible and impossible in our view) other cases
> that might have led to the effect assigned to  "quarks" quae non sunt.
> This is the very method by which conventional science arrives at paradoxes.
> Sorry for the outburst, please read it in a mild tune of voice.
> Thank you
> 
> John M

I, or more accurately Murray Gell-Mann, didn't "assume" a non-experiencable 
quark; he created a 
model of nuclear constituents and called them quarks.  Frank Wilcez showed why 
they would not be 
observable individually.  But this model correctly predicted (not "assigned") 
the results found in 
many subsequent experiments.  So it is a model in which I place some credence.

You gotta problem with that!?

Brent Meeker

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to