On 5/23/2012 8:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hmm... I agree with all your points in this post, except this one. The comp "model" (theory) has much more predictive power than physics, given that it predicts the whole of physics,


It's easy to predict the whole of physics; just predict that everything happens. But that's not predictive power.

Brent

and the whole of what that physics predicts (and this without mentioning that it predicts the whole qualia part too, unlike the "physics model"). But it does it in a very more difficult way, without "copying on nature".

Of course it might be false. It might be that comp leads to a different mass for the electron or to the non existence of electrons. But comp, together with some definition of knowledge, predicts physics quantitatively and qualitatively.

Of course to use comp to predict an eclipse is not yet in its range, if it can ever be. To use comp for this, would be like using string theory to prepare a cup of tea. But the goal is not to do physics, just to formulate the mind-body problem, and figure out the less wrong bigger picture.

Bruno

--
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.

Reply via email to