On Sep 14, 1:27 am, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 9/13/2011 10:01 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 9:38 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net>  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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to