--- Brent Meeker <[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
YES, Brent, 'I gotta problem with that'. (It seems yoU

did not read my post in 'mild' enough tune) Gell- Mann

created a model to carry those assumptions (oops! math
predictions) which resulted in the 10^nth level
assumption from the caveman's first observation of
nature, adjusted continually by the ongoing epistemic
enrichment of human thinking. This limited model was
reduced to serve that ONE purpose and was cut off from
the 'rest of the world and its unlimited functions'. 
 I heard Gell-Mann in 1997 about 'complex models' and
found him excellent in the reductionist science. Some
people raised such points and he became impatient. I
liked his book and the quark story. If there is no
such thing as 'atom' or 'matter' for that matter, why
should I 'believe' a narrow nodel of its ingredient?
(I did not find any 'matterly' in the (sub)atomic
physical particles that could justify the hardess of a
tabletop. I was a 'belever' in physics 101 in college,
where reputable professors (books) recited the 
 'experiments' of others from the past and calculated
those models so drawn up with the topical limitatins
in beautiful equations. I got rid of all that when I
started to think. If I give in now to the quark, there
is no stop all the way to back to physics 101. I leave
that to the engineers and the technical inventors, who
created our fabulous technology and I use it happily.
Not as tools for some in-debth understanding
(including the 38 patents to my name either). 
Toothbrush vs Debussy. 
I claim my ignorance in a scientific agnosticism and
live with it. I am searching for words not too much
anchored in unwanted semantics to express what I feel
is right. It needs a "mother tongue". Unfortunately I
stopped using my mother tongue when I was still
sitting in my reductionist model (natural) science and
English is the 5th...
  I could use 2-300 more years for the search. 
Maybe there IS a Q-suicide with teleportation to some
other universe although THAT I consider not an
assumption but an illusion or an exaggerated sci-fi. 

Sorry if I annoyed you


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 

Reply via email to