John Mikes wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
 > This looks like Tarski's trick to me.  It is an act of faith any time
 > we take what we say as truth.
On 12/24/06, *Brent Meeker* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: "When I take what I say to be true based on evidence it is not a matter of faith"
it is based on your faith in your evidence and its truth. A religious person accepts as evidence "God said so" - of course it is based on HIS faith, and so are physicists evidencing by collapse of wave function, .by calculations on the inflation after the BB, and other kind of 'scientists' (believing) in the tenets of their (today's) science, just as (in Ptolemy-time) on the flatness of the Earth.

Tom Caylor wrote:
 >This is unsupported without an ultimate
 > Person who gives the ultimate source of bringing truth into existence
 > through words.
"This is pure magic mongering - as though some special "ultimate" person can bring something into existence by words."
Unless you have 'faith' in that "ultimate person"<G> - I take Brent's side here.
Critics of reductionism ignore the contrary process of synthesis. Physics does not *just* reduce things to atoms, it also shows how things are synthesized from atoms and their relations.
"relations" is a big word (Do you have a good meaning for it?)

Multi-place predicates.  Note that some physicists (David Mermin, Carlo Rovelli) propose 
that we formulate quantum mechanics as "relations without relata".

IMO it includes the impredicative - non computable interrelatedness of the totality we cannot include into our limited reductionist models.

Just because our models are limited does not justify the conclusion that there 
are things that cannot be modelled.

Nor can "physics" consider all of it in a 'synthetic' opposite.

All of what?  Are you sure there is a "whole"?

I consider Stathis's words on his "chemistry" as his domain-concept of relations between people etc., otherwise I would have argued (on my turf) about chemistry's "occurrence" vs our figment how to depict and explain into patterns (even drawn into 2D formulation upon the atomic illusions in chem. science) the figment we have about certain primitively observed phenomena. All in the sense of "physical" edifice-evidence we have ""FAITH"" in.

I cant' discern any meaning in that.

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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to