On 06 Jan 2013, at 21:59, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
Not all physicists are materialists, or if they are, they are
inconsistent
if they deal with quantum physics, which is nonphysical.
All theories are non physical, but this does not make a materialist
theory inconsistent. With non comp you can make identify mind and non
physical things with some class of physical phenomena.
Careful, in philosophy of mind, "materialism" means "only matter
fundamentally exists". But comp is already contradicting "weak
materialism", the thesis that some matter exists fundamentally (among
possible other things).
Some physicists are non materialist and even non-weak-materialist
( (which is stronger and is necessary with comp). But even them are
still often physicalist. They still believe that everything is
explainable from the behavior of matter (even if that matter is
entirely "ontologically" justified in pure math).
Comp refutes this. Physics becomes the art of the numbers to guess
what are the most common universal numbers supporting them in their
neighborhood, well even the invariant part of this.
Bruno
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/6/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-06, 14:17:42
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 1/6/2013 5:30 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
Materialists can't consistently accept inextended structures and
functions such as quantum fields--or if they do, they aren't
materialists.
So no physicists since Schrodinger are materialists. So materialism
can't very well be "scientific dogma" as you keep asserting.
Brent
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/6/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-05, 15:37:09
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 1/5/2013 6:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
Empirical data, to my way of thinking, trumps scientific dogma
(such as materialism) any day.
It's rather funny that you keep assailing scienctists as being
dogmatic materialists and yet you think their world picture: curved
metric space, quantum fields, schrodinger wave functions,... is all
immaterial.
Brent
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6007 - Release Date:
01/03/13
--
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
.
--
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
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
