Brent, Just put the origin of your GR BH solution at the singularity and most all is explained.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:56 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1/27/2014 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:55, meekerdb wrote: > > On 1/26/2014 9:19 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 27 January 2014 17:31, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 1/26/2014 6:44 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> I have provided the definition. Should I repeat? >>> God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is supposed to be >>> responsible for my or our existence. >>> >>> Sounds like "physics" to me. >>> >> >> If physics is transcendental, a lot of people may be wasting their time >> trying to find a TOE. >> >> Depends on what "transcendental" things have to transcend. Bruno's >> fond of pointing out that physicist just assume that matter is fundamental >> but don't define it. Of course they might say, "It's whatever we find to >> be fundamental...and we're calling it doG." >> >> Transcendental does have a lot of meanings, depending on who's using > it, but generally I'd take it to be something like "beyond our > understanding", hence my (tongue in cheek) comment. > > I think Bruno has a point. Well, at least, I'd be disappointed if > physicist decided that they couldn't explain matter etc, and that they > should just "shut up and calculate" from now on. > > > Refer to my discourse on solving "the hard problem". If you calculate > stuff accurately and predict stuff that surprising, people will think > you've explained it. > > > By definition, that can solve only the easy problem. You just dismiss > the hard problem. > > Yet, the hard problem is 99,9% solvable, but with the price that > physicalism is wrong. net adavantage, we do get an explanation, not only > for consciousness, but also for the origin of matter. > > Here I 'm afraid you tend to be an eliminativist, here. > > > That's the main point. Science has advanced and people *suppose* that it > has explained gravity and electromagnetism and atoms and descent of species > and lots of other stuff. But what it has done is show their relations and > made accurate predictions AND *eliminated* the things people asked to be > explained: Newton didn't explain what pushed the planets around. Darwin > didn't explain how animals adapted. Maxwell didn't explain the > luminiferous ether. Just like we can't explain to Edgar how gravity gets > out of a black hole. Science advances a lot by "eliminativism". > > 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.
