> On May 8, 3:56 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 'The Laws of Physics'  don't refer to human notions (they certainly
>>> are not regarded that way by scientists
>> They are by the scientists I know.
> The *knowledge* we have of the laws of physics are human notions.  But
> the laws of physics *per se* are not.  

All the laws of physics we know of, or ever will know of, are.

>See other post.  Think computer
> science and information.  Our concepts are information and so is
> reality.  

How do you know what reality is?

>So in the case of useful concepts there has to be a partial
> match between the information content of the concepts and the
> information content of reality.  This means we can infer properties
> about reality from our concepts.  The distinction between map and
> territory is not absolute.  A simulated hurricane for instance, has
> *some* of the exact same *information content* as a real hurricane.

But some is not all.  The hurricane embodies the information of our fluid 
dynamic model of a hurricane plus a whole lot more.

>>> - the whole notion of an
>>> objective reality would have be thrown out the window if we thought
>>> that there were no objective laws of physics since as mentioned,

True.  But ask yourself why you think there is an objective reality, as opposed 
to being a brain in a vat or a simulation in a computer or a number in a UD?  
It's not because you perceive reality directly.  

>>> physics is the base level of reality), but are precise mathematical
>>> rules which have to be (postulated as) *universal* in scope for the
>>> scientific method to work at all.
>> Sure, they are precise mathematical systems, which the scientist hopes and 
>> intends to describe (part of) an objective reality.  But the map is not the 
>> territory and scientists know it.
> See above.  And read Tegmark's paper!  ;) In the case of mathematics
> the distinction between map and territory is breaking down.  Remember
> what we agreed on earlier - math is *both* epistemological (a map we
> use to understand reality) *and* ontological (the territory  itself)

I have never agreed that mathematics has the same ontological status as 
"reality" (whatever that is).  I think mathematics is all a human construct 
which is used to describe reality and a lot of other stuff.  I've read 
Tegmark's paper; that doesn't mean I accept it as 'the truth'.

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

Reply via email to