On 16 Jun 2014, at 00:03, LizR wrote:
On 16 June 2014 08:16, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/14/2014 11:42 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 June 2014 01:54, <[email protected]> wrote:
I have not attempted to correlate my theory with the thinking of
Plato and
Aristotle. I would be happy to discuss this with you (my cell phone
number is 858-353-0997) or to consider your specific thoughts as to
how my
theory relates to the thinking of these fellows.
"Aristotelianism" is philosophical shorthand (so to speak) for
theories which assume that matter/energy and space/time are
"primitive", which means they cannot be explained by anything
simpler. Aristotle thought that all that existed were "atoms and
the void"
No, although that's what Bruno implies. Aristotle believed in
substances which had inherent properties including teleological
propensities (air rises, stone fall). He denied that a vacuum was
possible. It was Democritus and Epicurus that hypothesized atoms
and void.
Oh yes, you're quite right, it was too. But please bear in mind that
the point of this post is to explain to Mr Ross the Aristotle /
Plato distinction that gets bandied around on this forum.
"Aristotelean" in this context is just shorthand for "primitive
materialism", as far as I know.
which is still roughly what "materialist" scientists think (Brent
may disagree with this, but from what I've read this appears to be
the tacit assumption of the majority of physicists).
I'd say "working hypothesis" - but why not? They're doing physics.
Exactly my point. I don't know why you made such a fuss about saying
they didn't.
The evidence for this view is mainly that it appears self-evidently
true!
I think that's a very limited view. It has only been "self-evident"
for few hundred years - and only among a small segment of the
world's population. Even on this list some argue that there must be
some extra magic in humans and they can't be *just* matter.
Yes, I meant specifically to physicists. Bear in mind this is
supposed to be a short summary for J Ross' benefit.
"Platonism" is shorthand for theories which assume that the
universe is in some sense a reflection of some hidden underlying
'perfect forms" - the modern take on this, due to Max Tegmark and
others, is that these perfect forms are mathematical structures. I
don't pretend to know what this would mean in practice, although A.
Garret Lisi attempted to produce a TOE based on this idea (however,
this hasn't stood up to scrutiny). Tegmark has suggested that the
evidence for this view is that over the last 500 or so years, maths
has been the "royal road to physical explanations" - there is
nothing in physics which isn't maths plus what he calls "surplus
baggage" - an interpretation of some underlying maths. Whether this
has ontological significance is still unknown.
And it depends a lot on what you think about mathematics; whether
it's just a precise and and strictly logical subset of language or
whether it's really real ur-stuff.
Yes, that's one way to rephrase what I just said. My only addition
is that if you think the former, then you should explain why it
works so well. I'm open to suggestions, of course, but so far
Tegmark's MUH seems to be the only one I've heard that seems to have
any philosophical teeth.
It is less wrong, but Tegmark is still mainly physicalist, and avoid
the mind-body problem (and ignores computer science and mathematical
logic). By mentioning self-reference Wheeler get closer. As in a quote
of him by Jason, it seems he is only understanding now the FPI, but
still not handling the points of view.
(You just find him more cute than me, I think. Still, you should see
me with my new glasses :)
Yes physicians and theologians are like french and british digging
under the see for the channel tunnel, and it is normal that we should
met at some point, but note the difference in the approach. Coming
from comp and math, you can take into account simultaneously the truth
and the provable, and the difference, for the machine, which enrich a
lot the spectrum of rational discourses (indeed it go up to the
"theological" in the sense of some greeks and indians, and chinese).
Bruno
--
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.
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/d/optout.
