2010/9/1 Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I should just add that "idealist accidentalism" is *exactly* as > irrefutable > > as solipsism. > > > > Hence by that it has no value... but it's not refuted. > > What would refute physicalism? It would seem to me that quantum > mechanics is sufficiently flexible to account for nearly any > observation, especially since the many worlds interpretation and the > possibility of multiverses would seem likely to give rise to so many > permutations. > > Even probabilistic physical laws and a single infinite universe would > still seem likely to give rise to some pretty bizarre scenarios, > wouldn’t it? > > Now, maybe quantum mechanics will be replaced by a different theory, > but can you imagine any possible feature of such a theory that would > rule out a physicalist interpretation? > > And, again, any rule-based framework for explaining our conscious > experiences means, by definition, that don’t present or believe > arguments for reasons of logic or rationality. Instead, the arguments > that we present and believe are those entailed by the rules that > underlie our experiences. > > That these rules generate rational beliefs is a leap of faith, and can > neither be refuted nor proven. > > If the underlying process *didn’t* cause us to present and believe > rational arguments, there would be no way to detect this, since there > is no way to step outside of the process’s control of one’s beliefs to > independently verify the "reasonableness" of the beliefs it generates. > > A physicalist may be correct about the physical nature of reality, but > if so, this is solely due to his improbable good luck in existing in a > rare "honest" physical universe whose initial conditions and causal > laws resulted in his holding true beliefs about his universe's initial > conditions and causal laws. > > Given all that, ultimately I doubt your beliefs are any better footing > than solipsism either. > > Rex >
Euh.. I'm sorry but where did I state my belief in the preceeding message ? Where did I spoke about physicalism ? I spoke about "idealist accidentalism" in answer to Bruno who said wrongly it's been refuted when it's not because well... read the preceeding message. Quentin > -- > 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 > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
