On 12/30/2013 7:44 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Brent,

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:20 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    On 12/30/2013 6:09 PM, LizR wrote:
    On 31 December 2013 07:44, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
    <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

        On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:
        On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com
        <mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com>> wrote:

            Dear Bruno,

            Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category
            ofcomputer/universal-numbers and physical realities? That way we 
can avoid
            a lot of problems!
             I think that it is because of your insistence of the Platonic view 
            the material/physical realm is somehow lesser in ontological status 
            the assumption that a timeless totality = the appearance of change 
            its measures) is illusory. I would like to be wrong in this 

        The problem is that assuming the material / physical realm as 
fundamental gets
        you no further than assuming that "God did it!" It's a "shut up and 
        (or shut up and pray) ontology.

        With materialism you just have a "brute fact" - well, maybe that's it, 
        there /is /just a brute, unexplained fact. But us ape descended life 
        like to look for explanations even beneath the apparent brute facts!

        But "Everything happens" is just as useless as "God did it".  A theory 
that can
        explain anything fails to explain at all.

    It can't explain /anything/. It just says that all outcomes of the laws of 
    are instantiated. This requires less information than saying that a specific
    outcome of the LOP is instantiated, assuming the LOP allow more than one 

    But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's 
Advocate, or
    do you honestly not see the usefulness of multiverse theories?

    Stephen isn't talking about a multiverse as implied by physics, he's 
talking about
    an immaterialist theory, a "timeless Platonic totality", which I can only 
    consists of everything not self-contradictory or some such.

Geee, it is that hard for you to parse what I right and make sense of it? How many times have I claimed that both materialism and immaterialism have severe problems and that I reject them. Sheesh, learn to read.

Sorry, my mistake.


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to