Brent Meeker wrote:
>> >[SP] The common sense view is that there is an
>> underlying primitive physical reality generating this appearance
> Your assumption of "underlying primitive physical reality" puts you
> in the line of believers. It is not necessary to make such assumption
> to build predictive theories to model/describe the observations.

.>But it's not necessarily an assumption.  You can look at it as a
metaphysical inference:
.> an answer to the question,
.>"Why do these models seem to work so well at describing our
intersubjective agreement?"

How about common sense answer: "Just because I'm so damn smart."
So, we may remain within paradigm of observation/explanation and no
need for metaphysics being involved. It may be useful to make
"underlying reality" assumption for some theories if it is
essential and irreducible part of it but I'm not aware about any of
such examples.

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