On 06 Nov 2012, at 17:02, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 11/6/2012 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 05 Nov 2012, at 17:10, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 11/5/2012 10:35 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King

Infallibility isn't involved. The typical textbook
explanation for realism is, "if a tree falls in a
forest and nobody is there to hear it, would it
make a sound?"

A realist (such as me) would say "yes."
The logician in me would say "no!" Because a sound is something that must be capable of being heard to exist. If no one is truly around, then the noise that the tree might make cannot be heard and thus there is not a sound.

This is ambiguous.

Either by sound you mean the subjective feeling that a human can get when a tree falls. Then it is reasonable to assume the necessity of a human in the forest to say that there is a sound (although it is a bit impolite for the other animals in the forest).

Or you mean by sound the air vibration, then it is reasonable to suppose, locally, that the virbation can exist, even without human, nor animals, in the forest.

Dear Bruno,

You are dazzled by the hypotheticals, revealing that you do take the possibility of an observer to exist even when none is stipulated to exist, thus fall into the trap.


Stop doing that. You yourself make a big deal of the need for exactness and soundness of theories and yet don't stop to think: What am I assuming unconsciously about how it is that there is even a theory?

Why? On the contrary. Arithmetic explains why they are observers and how and why they make theories.

If a theory X asks us to eliminate the possibility of a physical world, then that theory must be taken at face value.

I think that here you confuse (for the 10001 times) the notion of primitive (or assumed at the start) physical reality, and the more general notion of physical reality (primitive or not). Comp forbids the first, but show also how to explain an assess the second.

Nothing in X can have anything to do with physical attributes
and thus, actions vanish from it. It ceases to even be a theory.

I can understand with "physical" used in the sense of Aristotle, but it is false with "physical" used in the sense of Plato.



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