On 2/12/2014 1:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb 2014, at 18:20, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2014 8:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb 2014, at 04:15, meekerdb wrote:
...
Brent
"That which can explain *anything* fails to explain at all."
With physicalism, QM explains everything. At some level at least.
First, that's not true. QM is apparently inconsistent with our best theory of
gravity.
Sure, but a bit aside the point.
Second, it has been very successful at explaining what is observed.
Everything that we observe. My point is that with the quoted criteria, this should
entail that it explains nothing.
That doesn't mean it can explain ghosts, leprechauns, gods and other things *not*
observed.
Why not "consciousness" and other things that we do not see, but at least
believe in?
There's a difference between being able to explain anything and explaining
everything.
That's my point.
Bruno
Then it's not well taken since I used the word "anything" originally and your complaint
implies I wrote "everything".
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.
