On 8 April 2015 at 12:35, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Seems a lot simpler to have a primary physical universe. Then all you have > to do is explore it. > If simplicity is the key, then it's a lot simpler to have a Newtonian universe. In fact, it's even simpler to have one with just atoms and the void and four (or is it five?) alchemical elements. The only reason to make things as complicated as necessary, (but no more) is because this gives us extra explanatory power that simpler theories lack. Bruno, for example, is trying to explain the nature of consciousness using a relatively simple and uncontroversial theory, and seeing where it leads. If you *start *from "where it leads" (the UDA and MGA and so on) then of course it looks complicated. But so does GR, if you start from the final equations ... but GR also starts from a very simple principle, and sees where it leads. -- 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/d/optout.
