On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 5:12 AM, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
Would you believe it was the hand of god? Why not the hand of some
space alien *pretending* to be god?
That would be a physicalist interpretation. How could anyone prove otherwise?
OR, it could turn out that god just is a superpowerful space
alien...that would also be a valid physicalist interpretation.
OR it you could say you were hallucinating it. Also a physicalist interpration.
OR it could be taken as the result of an extremely unlikely but not
impossible quantum fluctuation, followed by a whole series of supposed
miracles that are *also* just quantum fluctions. In an infinite
universe anything that's not strictly impossible in inevitable.
So another physicalist interpretation.
Did you never see that episode of Star Trek TNG where Picard faces
down a woman claiming to be the devil? "Devil's Due".
SO, as I said,physicalism is exactly as changeable as idealistic accidentalism.
> 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.
Whereas a phyiscalist would always say, "quantum mechanics did it", or
"unlikely but not impossible initial conditions explains it", or
I don't see the value of a physicalist interpretation of the
descriptive/predictive equations that constitute quantum theory.
> And yes theories which could never ever be disproved have little value.
Then physicalism, mathematical platonism, deism, etc. 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...
Even assuming that physicalism is true, what explains the fact that
our universe had the particular initial conditions and causal laws
that it does? Aren't these, in effect, accidental?
Everything else that we observe is just a coincidence of those two
contingent things...initial conditions and causal laws. Everything,
*including* our discovery of these causal laws and our theories about
the initial conditions. If we're right, this is an accident...a
stroke of good fortune in living in an "honest" universe, and not a
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