David Nyman wrote: > Brent Meeker wrote: > >> But it's still a model, one based on arithmetic rather than matter, and the >> only way to > judge whether it is a good model to see how it >> corresponds with "mere appearance"; just > like we test QM, general >> relativity, and every other theory. It *might* be the really real > >> model - but so might any other model that fits all the data. > > Yes, of course, Brent - hence my comments later on in my post. But in > fact, comp implies that the normal physics model can't 'fit all the > data', if we include (as we must) the 1-person pov itself in 'the > data'.
Suppose that theory X predicts there are some things we'll never figure out. And there are some things we haven't figured out. That's at best extremely weak support for theory X. >And my point is also that a model which is, in this respect > particularly, so counter to 'normal science' is especially provocative > and deserves much attention. Yes, I find it interesting and I'm willing to spend time trying to understand it - but being contrary to empiricism doesn't count in it's favor in my view. 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 email@example.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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---