On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 07:14:29PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 30 Jun 2015, at 01:27, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > > >My conclusion is that, overall, his arguments do not entail the > >conclusions he seeks to draw. > > > >So yes, I seek to defeat his 'proofs', not necessarily to prove > >the contrary. > > Ok, but I honestly think that you failed.
At step 7, you, yourself, admit that physicality, or "concreteness" of the primitive ontology has no bearing on phenomenal reality. You haven't proven immateriality, just that the primitive physicality is an unnecessary assumption. You need to wield Occam's razor to eliminate primitive physicality. I might be happy with this, but perhaps Bruce isn't. Step 8 doesn't address this issue at all, as it seems inapplicable to a robust universe. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/d/optout.
