On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 04:14:29PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > >Isn't it crazy to reject what there is enormous evidence for and > >accept what there is NO evidence for? > > That is what you do. There are no evidence for any universe, and > indeed, as you assume comp, you could understand that there is no > universe. The notion is close to inconsistent, and explanatively > empty. > Physicists measure numbers, and infer relation among numbers. Then > even cosmological theories usually avoid metaphysical commitment. > This is done by physicalist philosophers, and can make sense, but > then not together with the assumption that the brain functions > mechanically at some level. >
Sorry to be pernicketty, but if you are working in a theory that makes no ontologicical commitment (or metaphysical, which I assume is the same thing), then how does that contradict your reversal result? It is only a theory _about_ phenomena, not about what's ontologically real. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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.
