On 7/13/2010 1:52 PM, Allen Rex wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Brent Meeker<meeke...@dslextreme.com>  wrote:
On 7/12/2010 10:54 PM, Allen Rex wrote:
So, if the deterministic physicalists are right then given the initial
conditions of the universe plus the causal laws of physics as applied
over ~13.7 billion years, you could not believe other than you do at
this moment.  You are bound to your beliefs and to your destiny by
unbreakable causal chains.

And if the indeterministic physicalists are right then that's still
basically true, but there were also some coin flips involved in
chaining your beliefs down to their current configuration.  You are
bound to your beliefs and to your destiny by...constant coin flips.  A
bad run of luck, and there's no telling how you'll end up.

My beliefs are formed by reality - I'll take that as a compliment.
In that view, you know who else's views were formed by reality?
Charles Manson.  Ted Bundy.  John Wayne Gacy.  Stalin.  Hitler.  Every
murdering, molesting, schizophrenic, delusional, or psychopathic
deviant who has ever lived.

Also Einstein, Jefferson, Florence Nightingale, Lavosier, Bach, my mother, Bruno, Russell, Conrad,... On the whole, a lot more people I'm glad to be associated with than nuts.

That's who.

SO.  I wouldn't take it as *that* big a compliment.  Don't pat
yourself on the back too hard.

And if I'm right, there is no reason for the existence of your
conscious experience of holding those beliefs.

No, IF you're right there is no finite causal chain of explanations for
No, if I'm right (as opposed to the physicalists) there are no
explanations.  Just facts of experience.

So explanations are not part of reality - which is what I said. The problem with "just the facts, m'am" is that there are no theory-free facts. Do you experience the appearance of words on you computer monitor? Is that a fact? No, that is an inference assuming your eyes are working and you're not hallucinating. But maybe you're always hallucinating - No that won't work either because then "computer" and "monitor" and "appear" have no reference and no meaning, and you could not even form the thought of "seeing words on my monitor"?

There's no mysterious
"physical world" that underlies and explains what you oberve but has
no explanation itself.  Instead, your conscious experience exists
fundamentally and uncaused.  There is no you.  There is no future.
Only the conscious experience of these things.

You've made a great leap from "I can't have a complete explanation of the
world." to "There is no world".  You and Meillassoux are like the little boy
who discovers that no matter what his mother says he can ask "Why?", except
you consider it a profound discovery.
I think we're more like the little boy who points out that the emperor
wears no clothes.

Again, to me it looks like all three possibilities amount to the same thing.
The first two options just have a lot of extra
inferred-from-experience "behind the scenes" infrastructure which
serves no purpose except...what?

If you don't think it serves your pursposes, then don't believe.  I've found
it serves mine.
Indeed...I imagine that the dogmas of religious belief can be a great comfort.

You're the one insisting that you have found the secret of the universe. If we think it, it's a fact.

Occam's Razor is on my side.  Join us Brent.

Us?  Who's us?  In any case I don't exist.  I'd explain why, but ....
You don't exist, but in my experience, emails bearing the name Brent
Meeker always have interesting content.

Sorry, I have no explanation for that.

Speaking of which, you didn't respond to my previous email.  I was
particularly curious about your response to:

If every variant of dogmatic metaphysics is characterized by the
thesis that *at least one entity* is absolutely necessary (the thesis
of real necessity) it becomes clear how metaphysics culminates in the
thesis according to which *every* entity is absolutely necessary (the
principle of sufficient reason).  Conversely, to reject dogmatic
metaphysics means to reject all real necessity,
Why "all"?  Quantum mechanics already rejects some necessity and replaces it
with probabilities - but not "all"; instead it recovers necessities in
certain limits (eigenfunctions, decoherence,...).
Quantum mechanical laws would still enforce the necessity of one
probability distribution instead of some other, wouldn’t they?

The probabilistic aspect takes place within the fixed and unchanging
context of quantum mechanics.

Like the randomness of the shuffle takes places within the
deterministic rules of poker.

Do the rules of poker change from one day to the next?  The suits?
The number of cards in the deck?  Are those aspects random?

Does quantum mechanics have similarly fixed aspects?  Do new
fundamental forces pop in and out of existence?  Are there days when
electromagnetism doesn’t work?

And if not, why not?  What enforces the consistent application of the
QCD and QED and gravity?  And what enforces the consistent application
of that enforcement?  And what enforces the enforcement of the
consistent application of the enforcement?  And so on.

Is there a sufficient reason for these things?  Or is this just the
way it works, for no reason?

Dunno. Let's try to find out - instead of throwing up our hands and deciding in advance that nothing can be explained because everything can't be explained (or at least can't be known to have been explained).


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to