On 07 Jan 2012, at 21:54, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/7/2012 2:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You confuse naturalism (nature exists and is fundamental/primitive) and rationalism (things works by and for a reason). The first is the main axiom of Aristotle theology, the second defines the general scientific attitude. Today we know that they oppose each other. Indeed "nature" might have a non natural reason. For example nature, or the belief in nature, might have a logical and/or an arithmetical reason independent of its reification.

I would say you confuse them. There's no conflict between naturalism and "things work for a reason".

I think UDA presents such a conflict. I mean with metaphysical naturalism (not instrumentalist naturalism, which might be a good idea, at least for awhile. UDA shows that nature is secondary on some properties of universal machines/numbers.

The conflict was when "rationalism" meant drawing conclusions from pure rationcination, without reference to empiricial support.

I am an empiricist, in the sense that theories must be tested, including comp, despite it says that the physical reality is "in your head", indeed in the "head of all universal numbers". So let us compared the two physics.



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