On 03 Feb 2014, at 21:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/3/2014 12:23 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent and Bruno here is the main question: what would you identify
"REALITY" by?
Reality is that which we hope to approach
OK
by reification of the ontology of our best theories.
Why? I think it is better to never reify anything in science. We can
do it *for all practical purposes* in our everyday life, but not in
science, where reification and ontological commitment leads to the
stopping of progress and questioning.
Even scientific theology cannot/should not reify a creator or a
creation. But we can assume them, for the purpose of some argumentation.
Intimate conviction have to remain intimate. It is for the pause-café,
or the sunday philosophy.
Bruno
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
