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 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