On Sep 14, 1:27 am, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/13/2011 10:01 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Sep 13, 9:38 pm, meekerdb<[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 9/13/2011 4:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > >>>> The rules are at bottom the laws of physics. > >>> That doesn't mean anything. The laws of physics are the rules. That's > >>> why I say it's circular reasoning. I ask you what is a rule, and you > >>> say it's at the bottom of laws, but laws are just another word for > >>> rule. There is no bottom, because there's nothing there. It's an > >>> intellectual construct. > >> Of course it's an intellectual construct, but it has predictive power. > > I agree. Deferent and epicycle have predictive power too. It doesn't > > mean they can't be understood in a greater context with more > > explanatory if not predictive power. > > And that's what Bruno is trying to do - provide explanations in terms of > arithmetic; which > he takes as basic. But explanation is cheaper than prediction.
I take arithmetic as basic too, but not more basic than experience, and neither of which are more basic than sense-making itself. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
