Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 13-mars-07, à 05:03, Brent Meeker a écrit :
>> But there is no reason to believe there is any "root" cause that is 
>> deeper than variation with natural selection.  You have not presented 
>> any argument for the existence of this "ultimate" or "root".  You 
>> merely refer to "closed science" as though that proved something - but 
>> it begs the question.  You have to show there is something outside 
>> science in order to know that it is "closed"; not just that there is 
>> something science has not explained, there's lots of that, but 
>> something that science cannot, in-principle explain.
> Assuming comp, we can know that science will never been able to explain 
> where natural numbers come from. That's an insoluble mystery.
> It makes science open. Forever.

I think that depends on what you count as explanation.  There are certainly 
possible evolutionary explanations for why humans invented counting of say 
sheep instead of looking at each sheep as a unique thing.

> But then comp *can* explain (but does not yet provide more than an 
> embryo of explanation, yet already confirmed) where waves and particles 
> come from, and also, unlike physics, why waves and particles can hurt 
> (cf G/G*).

But can comp explain why there is einselection of large objects and the world 
is approximately classical.

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