George Levy wrote:
> Stephen Paul King wrote:
> >little discussion has
> >been given to the implications of taking the 1st person aspect as primary or
> >fundamental. Could you point me toward any that you have seen?
> Hi Stephen
> Alas, I am a mere engineer, not a philosopher. The only author I can
> point you to is John Locke who I was told had some view similar to the
> ones I expressed. I have formed my opinions mostly independently in the
> process of writing a book (unpublished :'( ) I think that science is
> moving gradually toward first person - starting with Galileo's
> relativity, then Einstein's relativity and finally with QM (MWI). As
> science had progressed, the observer has acquired a greater and greater
> importance. Extrapolating to the limit, "I" becomes central and its
> existence anthropically defines (creates) the world where it resides.
Science may have moved close to making the observer
central epistemically , but it has not room for the idea
that observers are ontologically fundamental.
Observers are people, homo sapiens, the product of millions
of years of evolution. Scientifically speaking.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at