No, I meant that quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, general relativity, are all current models of matter and it's interaction. So it is silly to say QFT is immaterial. Of cours it's immaterial; it's a *theory*. But it's a theory of matter (and a very good one). So to say a materialist can't 'believe in' QFT is confused.


On 1/6/2013 12:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King

I think what was meant was the inverse, namely that
no consistent materialist can believe in quantum mechanics.

[Roger Clough], []
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-06, 15:31:01
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.

On 1/6/2013 3:14 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/6/2013 11:37 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 1/6/2013 2:17 PM, meekerdb wrote:

So no physicists since Schrodinger are materialists.  So materialism can't very well be 
"scientific dogma" as you keep asserting.


Hi Brent,

     I think that you are taking as evidence the lack of overt statements as 
evidence. Any person that is marxist, for example, is a materialist, by 

So how many physicists are marxists in the philosophical sense.  I don't know 
even one.



     OK, so we can safely discount your claims about "no physicists since Schrodinger are 
materialists..." My point is that the lack of a direct statement in some particular form, like "I 
am a materialist" does not act as proof that "no physicists since Schrodinger are 
materialists". It only tells us some of the limits of your personal knowledge.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to