Russell Standish wrote:
Let me put it another way - Bruce do you accept Laplace's "je n'ai besoin de cet hypothese" when talking about God?
I understand what Laplace means, but I also think that not even Laplace would claim that this entails the non-existence of God. In other words, he might not need to hypothesize a god in order to explain the operation of his mechanistic universe. But God might not be an explanatory hypothesis, it might play a different role.
The real point is that Occam's razor, in any form, is not a truth-preserving inferential rule. Consequently, if the razzor is used in an argument, you cannot claim that the premises entail the conclusion. It is just an arbitrary choice on your part to read things one way rather than another.
In the context of the present discussion, I would say that UDA+MGA does not entail immaterialism. It is quite possible to accept primary physicality and interpret the universe in a pancomputationalist framework. The universe is then understood in terms of computations, but these are a consequence, secondary and not primary.
Bruce -- 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.
