On 7/19/2012 7:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

    To fix a typo

    On 7/19/2012 3:46 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
    Dear Bruno,

        I need to slow down and just address this question of your as
    it seems to be the point where we disconnect from understanding
    each other.

    On 7/19/2012 10:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
    At this stage I will ask you to define "physical".

        The physical is the represented as the sum of
    incontrovertible
    <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/incontrovertible> facts that
    mutually communicating observers have in common.

So 2 is prime is physical?

Hi Jason,

Any physical implementation that communicates "2 is prime" is, yes. The symbols that you are re3ading here, that are communicating to you are physical, no? Is this somehow being overlooked?


What about uncertainties, like string theory, or many worlds? Would those be nonphysical?

Indeed! If they can neither be experienced nor communicated then they are by this definition unphysical. This is not unusual. There are many solutions to accepted physics equations that are similarly considered "unphysical" without any controversy.

    It is those facts that cannot be denied without introducing
    contradictions, thus such things as "hallucinations" and
    "mirages" are excluded. I guess that this definition might seem
    tautological, but it seems to me to be the explanation that has
    the longest reach in its power to explain what is meant by the
word. Additionally, physical refers to "objects of the world"

What do you mean by "the world"?

Earth, This Hubble Volume, Everything beyond it in all dimensions forever, all branches of the wavefunction, all possible string theories, all self-consistent structures?

Any and all of those that satisfy the definition that I gave above. It seems that people like axiomatic definitions, so have some. ;-P The point is that without observers that act as the "to whom meaning obtains" there is no such thing as meaningfulness. This is my thumbnail argument against Platonism and any other idealist ontology. Abstracting away the entity to whom meaning exists is just inverted semantic externalization <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6405/is_3_68/ai_n58511111/> and is equally fallacious. We can communicate all day about things, including ourselves, as if they don't exist, but this does not change any facts.



--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

--
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