Bruno, can you go a little deeper into what you mean by this prime matter that you're skeptical of.
On Jul 1, 2:38 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > On 01 Jul 2011, at 09:27, B Soroud wrote: > > > Bruno, > > > "It is simpler to assume that we do have a relation with reality. If > > not you fall in solipsism." > > > This doesn't work for me, we can go into this more deeply point by > > point, but suffice it to say that reality is not something separate > > from us.... people always make this mistake.... we are reality, we > > are a part of reality, and our experiences are perception dependent, > > in some naive and rudimentary sense, and our experience is > > physiologically, environmentally and conceptually conditioned, > > always... > > That is coherent with what I said. > > > reality is a word that is losing much meaning for me nowadays.... > > But this does not follow. > > > > > and as in response to the "we".... it is in the old Augustinean > > sense.... where you know what it is and paradoxically you don't know > > what it is.... > > That is the 1-person (even the singular 1-person). It is not really a > we. For a we, you need to already bet on a reality with other people. > > > > > final quesiton.... has anyone here studied Hegel indepthly... I am > > starting to think that that is important to do.... and I'm getting > > ready to take it up. > > You might try to make a summary. I find it rather obscure, but > frequently some people find the universal numlber's discourse rather > Hegelian. I am not sure because he seems to believe in a phenomenology > of mind where I think we need a phenomenology of matter. > > Bruno > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> > > wrote: > > > On 01 Jul 2011, at 08:15, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: > > > "but I prefer to think of physics as a collection of models, models > > that map the territory, but are never the territory itself. " > > > who's to say that there even is a territory or what it is? > > > We assume this. Science start from theories, that is assumption. > > > It seems to me that we are all presupposing some vague notion of > > "reality" to begin with, a notion as ambiguous, hypothetical, elusive, > > and complex as "god". > > > I appreciate this. That is why science is the best tool of the > > serious theologian. > > > we presuppose and pre-define a "reality" that we are trying to catch > > an adequate glimpse of. > > > we project a pre-conceived notion of a goal and then go for it. > > > As Nietzsche pointed out, perhaps there is no such thing as truth and > > reality, and even if there was, perhaps they are not only in some > > sense presupposed and implicitly pre-defined, but that they may even > > be highly overvalued. > > > What I try to explain is that if we assume that we are machine, then > > we don't need more than (N, + *), ontologically. > > In science we are always modest, and never know-for-sure if our > > theories are true. We can only hope to be refuted. > > > Science is not the truth per se. Science is doubt. > > > If reality is conceived of like a Kantian "thing-in-itself" that is > > essentially Other then you and inaccessible, but you are trying to > > infer a conception of it..... what kind of conceptually conditioned > > "reality" is that? > > > It is simpler to assume that we do have a relation with reality. If > > not you fall in solipsism. > > > I'm only thinking of reality here as in some "fundamental" and > > "systematic" sense. > > > Before we think of science or physics as the royal road to reality, > > > If we are machine, physics is not the royal road. But consciousness > > and numbers (or finite things) are, and then it can be shown how the > > physical realm emerge from the number, and this in a way which makes > > it testable. Science does not exist, but some human can develop a > > scientific attitude, which is a modest doubting skeptical ability > > which departs from the authoritative arguments. > > Given than the most fundamental science (theology) is still in the > > hands of "authorities", and has still not yet come back in academy, > > we can say that science has not yet really begun. We have not yet > > the right to doubt in theology (be it the atheist theology, or the > > conventional theologies). > > > we > > have to recognize that we are the ones presupposing and preconceiving > > and predefining notions of reality to begin with. > > > What do you mean by "we"? Is the term "we" used for the universal > > numbers, or we the mammals, or we the homeotherm animals, the > > creature of earth?, etc. > > > If we don't make theories, we cannot be shown wrong, and we cannot > > progress. Science is a path from doubts to even more doubts. > > > Bruno > > > On Jun 11, 7:51 am, Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Instrumentalism, anyone? > > >http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.12395,y.2011,no. > > 3,content.... > > > The range of phenomena physics has explained is more than impressive; > > it underlies the whole of modern civilization. Nevertheless, as a > > physicist travels along his (in this case) career, the hairline cracks > > in the edifice become more apparent, as does the dirt swept under the > > rug, the fudges and the wholesale swindles, with the disconcerting > > result that the totality occasionally appears more like Bruegel’s > > Tower of Babel as dreamt by a modern slumlord, a ramshackle structure > > of compartmentalized models soldered together into a skewed heap of > > explanations as the whole jury-rigged monstrosity tumbles skyward. > > > [...] > > > Such examples abound throughout physics. Rather than pretending that > > they don’t exist, physics educators would do well to acknowledge when > > they invoke the Wizard working the levers from behind the curtain. > > Even towards the end of the twentieth century, physics was regarded as > > received Truth, a revelation of the face of God. Some physicists may > > still believe that, but I prefer to think of physics as a collection > > of models, models that map the territory, but are never the territory > > itself. That may smack of defeatism to many, but ultimate answers are > > not to be grasped by mortals. Physicists have indeed gone further than > > other scientists in describing the natural world; they should not > > confuse description with understanding. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Everything List" group. > > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > . > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en > > . > > >http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Everything List" group. > > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > . > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en > > . > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Everything List" group. > > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > . > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en > > . > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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.
