On 2/12/2014 11:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:34, meekerdb wrote:
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".
All right. I interpreted "anything" by "anything worth to be explained".
If not, for a logician, that which can explain *anything* becomes an inconsistent
theory, or the set of sentences true in a cul-de-sac world.
If I reported that there was a flying pig, wouldn't comp just explain, "That's the way
arithmetic looks from inside."?
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 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.
