On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> You've made up some just-so stories about how some other quasi-physical
> explanation *might* be adopted.
In what way are my proposed explanations "quasi-physical" instead of
> You haven't show that they *would* be
> preferred to supernatural ones.
I don't need to show that they would be preferred. I just need to
show that physicalism is still a live option, and thus not
And honestly I find my proposed explanations more plausible than
supernatural ones. While God would explain the Sikhs prayer thing,
that also runs into the problem of evil.
The simulation argument alone is enough to see off any God-based
competition. Anyone who already leans in that direction would
probably take this option over God in the event of an outbreak of
Initially I'm sure the vast majority of people would be convinced of a
supernatural explanation for OBEs or healing prayer...*but* the vast
majority of people are already religiously inclined. So I'm not sure
that a popularity contest counts.
I'd bet that the majority of atheists would choose one of my
proposals, or maybe come up with an even better physicalist
> You can always speculate that any
> regularity we note is just a false positive that in inevitable in an
> infinite universe - but that will convince no one.
"No one" is way too strong. It would convince some.
Also you could conclude that we'd wondered into a low-probability
branch of the universal wave function a-la the many worlds
I think all "many worlders" would take this interpretation of events
if there were an outbreak of miracles. Do you disagree?
And the many world interpretation isn't that different than the
infinite universe option.
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