Actually on re-reading I'm even less sure I follow what you're saying. Do you not think there is anything fundamental, and if so, could you explain how that works? I seem to recall Stephen Paul King (I think it was) saying that there were two fundamental things - and primitive materialism has two (space-time and mass-energy, unless someone manages to unite them).
Are you thinking that the number is larger, or that it's zero, or that the whole idea is a category error? On 10 June 2014 12:55, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10 June 2014 10:13, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 6/9/2014 2:46 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> I guess I could venture that it's the ontology of any TOE in which >>> interactions are all 3p. >>> >>> OK, thanks. So I would guess that it's equivalent to eliminativism, as >> I think it's called - the idea that consciousness is an illusion ("albeit a >> persistent one"). It does seem that way to me. >> >> I don't think it implies eliminativism. There's still temperature even >> though we have statistical mechanics. I think there's far too much >> importance given to "what's fundamental" and it leads to calling everything >> else and illusion. I doubt that Bruno thinks arithmetic is an illusion >> just because what's fundamental is 0, S, +, and *. A correction to this >> kind of obsession with essence is why I like my virtuous circle of >> explanation. >> > > So how can all interactions be 3p? Maybe I misunderstood. It seems to me > that consciousness implies there's 1p stuff going on? > -- 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/d/optout.
