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], [rclo...@verizon.net]
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. King
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.
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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at