On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:18 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/12/2013 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > The difference is the following. Some say there is a broken glass, but > forbid you to ask "why there is a broken glass?". That is what some > materialist, and all physicalist are doing for the notion of "physical > universe". They say that we cannot find an explanation of the origin of the > physical laws, and insult as irremediably idiot anyone trying to search on > that problem. > > > There seems to be a lot of attributing of opinions to others. My friend > Vic Stenger, who's about as reductionist and physicalist as one can be, has > written a book, "The Comprehensible Cosmos" about the origin of physical > "laws", which he says are just models we create. I don't know of any > physicist who insists that we cannot find an explanation for physical laws - > Ok but... > although very few of them think the probability of success makes the study > a wise choice. > > Doesn't this make the point? Their positions influence research/funding and low probability means practically "stupid"... also, how should anyone about probabilities with such a question? Not hubris? PGC > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
