thanks for the "I think"<G> in your text below - also: I cannot argue
against your negative assessement about atheism - who IMO require a 'God" to
deny. You know my shortcomings to equate physics with other domains of *hearsay
belief systems*, like *theology* (as *religion* mainly). What I mean is a
'system' based on primitive misunderstandings of phenomena at a lower level
epistemicly enriched explanatory attempt, at a very early age (way before
the Greeks) that was "kept" as a basis and equipped by the newer epistemic
additions over the eons of development up to our times *now* (and continued
probably for the future). You add to that your "belief system" of the
numerals as constituting 'our world' - if used in large enough sequences -
what I do not address at this moment.
At any rate: it is a 'human' base for constituting a worldview.
We are not capable of more.
Our capabilities are restricted to absorb only parts of the totality and
that. too, in ways how our PERSONAL thinking machine (brain?) adjusted them
into its genetic buildup AND our personal experience-background, making it
into a PERSONAL *mini-solipsism*, (expression from Hale) - also
callable a *perceived
reality*. Partial, that is.
Since you slanted the 'mind-body' problem towards religious connotations(?),
I turned to the Cartesian "body-soul" dualistic pair which was a result of
Descartes's fear of the Inquisition.
Not finding reasonable that a short-"lived" body should impose 'eternal'
judgements upon an 'eternal' soul, in such respect (at least in its
effectiveness?) the 'body' extends the *time-limit* we assign to the
contraption enclosed (*spacially*) into our 'skin' - what I find untrue as
This may be done by questioning the precision of our 'time' (and arrow of
it) concept as physics takes it into account more or less.
As someone who does not include the necessity of a "creator" or "god" into a
worldview and claims agnostic ignorance about the much dicussed "origins" as
well as the conclusions of physics-based conventional sciences and considers
'eternity' a timeless concept (maybe just an instant?) furthermore the
'numerals' and math - as David Bohm said: a human invention, -
I have no proposal how to formulate answers to those 'burning' questions of
Just a thought that may be wrong, but could lead to further enlightening
ideas if some smarter-than-me minds add their remarks to it.
With best regards, respectfully
On 9/18/10, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 18 Sep 2010, at 14:34, 1Z wrote:
>> On 3 Sep, 09:10, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> Physicists have a tradition of putting mind and consciousness under
>>> the rug,
>> Physicists have a tradition of not being psychologists
>> front of the 'hard consciousness problem', or the mind-body problem.
> Indeed. Since Aristotle. Even more so since Christians burns those who
> depart from the Dogma, and atheism blocks progress in a less hot but as
> irrational way.
> But the platonist start with the right unifying principles, I think. The
> idea to separate physics from theology has been fertile methodologically,
> but, as I explained, it just does not work without reintroducing magical
> matter and/or magical minds, and/or magical dualist supervenience
> 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
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