On 9/12/2013 6:42 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:18 AM, meekerdb <[email protected] <mailto:[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
You're perfectly free to pursue the subject. Everybody has to decide for themselves how to spend their life. I don't think they owe you an explanation for their decision.
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.
