John M wrote:
> --- Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>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
>>>>>doesn't rule it out of a
>>>>>scienctific model: quarks can't be observed, but
>>their effects can.
>>>what gives you the right to "assume" a non
>>experienceable quark as
>>>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.
>>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!?
> YES, Brent, 'I gotta problem with that'. (It seems yoU
> did not read my post in 'mild' enough tune)
I shoulda put a smiley on that. ;-)
> 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.
I'm sure your professors will be disappointed to hear that their hard won
theories are inconsistent
>If I give in now to the quark, there
> is no stop all the way to back to physics 101.
Forget quarks. How about giant sea squids? I've never seen one of those
either and no one has seen
one alive. Or a DNA molecule? Or Plato? If your thought has led you to
discard all "narrow
models", what do you think about?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at