2010/9/2 Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com>
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com>
> >> I did read your preceeding message. And what I got out of it is that
> >> if you consistently apply your evaluative criteria, you should
> >> conclude that physicalism, platonism, deism, theism, arithmetical
> >> realism and all other metaphysical theories that reduce conscious
> >> experience to some sort of underlying rule-governed framework are
> >> irrefutable and thus valueless.
> > You're the one saying that.
> You are correct, I seem to be the only one saying that if you apply
> your evaluative criteria consistently, then your charge against
> idealist accidentalism applies equally to physicalism and the rest.
> > The problem with "idealist accidentalism" (like
> > with sollipsism) is that you can change at will to adapt to the fact.
> > not the case with the others (but is the case with
> > theism/deism/magic/bisounours world/etc).
> Physicalism is exactly as changeable as idealistic accidentalism.
> That was the point of my earlier response to you.
> What new fact could possibly refute physicalism??? (or mathematical
> platonism, or whatever)
How could physicalism account for a big giant hand of god (?) appearing in
the sky ? :D
It can't... "idealist accidentalism" can account *all* the facts, not some
of them but all... the worst thing is that it can account everything and has
no explanatory value, it denies explanation in its own definition. So yes
it's useless, you can posit it and then go sleeping.
If you can always say to any question some thing like 'it's because the
pastafari did it'... then I don't see the value of the theory.
And yes theories which could never ever be disproved have little value.
Keep in mind that idealistic accidentalism is an alternative to
> physicalism, not to quantum field theory.
quantum field theory in a "idealistic accidentalism" world has no value
because it accidentaly works...
> Physicalism just being the thesis that that everything which exists is
> no more extensive than its physical properties; that there are no
> kinds of things other than physical things.
> So, what new data couldn't be interpreted as being consistent with that?
> An idealistic accidentalist would take an instrumentalist view of
> quantum mechanics. As opposed to some form of scientific realism that
> a physicalist might support.
> 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
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
For more options, visit this group at