On 02.09.2011 14:31 Stathis Papaioannou said the following:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi<use...@rudnyi.ru>
Consider a single carbon atom in a book. The atom follows a
trajectory from where it was one thousand years ago to where it
is in the book today. Do you believe that at every point in this
trajectory it moves due to the forces acting on it, or do you
believe that at some point the atom is influenced by non-physical
factors to move in a way contrary to physical laws?
At the moment, I can exclude nothing. In my current view, the
existence of books in general and in particular on consciousness
contradicts with known physics. It well might be that this
contradiction is illusory, I do not know. Hence there was my
question. If you know a plausible mechanism how books could be
self-assembled, please just describe it.
So you do believe that somewhere in the trajectory of the carbon
atom as it makes its way into the book it will move contrary to any
physical laws. If this happens in cells all the time it should be
easily observable. Does the fact that nothing like this has ever
been observed count for anything?
I do observe books. Say now I am reading Thomas Metzinger "Being no
One". I would say that the book does exist and even that Thomas
Metzinger has written it. Does this fact count for anything?
In this series there is a clear statement that there are questions
that we cannot solve, for example if the Universe is eternal or
not. You rely on cause and at the same time on Big Bang. But then
Big Bang seems to have no cause. Or do you know one in this case?
That is a question that presents some mystery and cosmologists argue
about. But very few biochemists would claim that miraculous chemical
reactions occur inside neurons.
Okay, so we already have a precedent with the cause logic. Yet, if once
it would be possible to live without a cause, then why it has happened
If to speak about a human being in general (this concerns cosmologists
and biochemists in particular), then Thomas Metzinger discusses in his
book "autoepistemic closure":
'"Autoepistemic closure" is an epistemological, and not (at least not
primarily) a phenomenological concept. It refers to an "inbuilt blind
spot", a structurally anchored deficit in the capacity to gain knowledge
This could explain the behavior of biochemists as well as cosmologists.
The brain just does not allow us to understand what the real universe
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at