On 03 Jul 2015, at 04:00, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruce Kellett wrote:
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.
Talking about hypotheses, it is interesting to compare Newton's
"hypotheses non fingo." This is normally taken out of context, but
the original context in the Principia is interesting. Newton is
summarizing his account of cometary orbits, and he says: "I have not
as yet been able to deduce from the phenomena the reason for these
properties of gravity, and I do not feign hypotheses. For, whatever
is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and
hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult
qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.
In this experimental philosophy, propositions are deduced from the
phenomena and are made general by induction."
But that is what the modern will called the hypothesis. The general
law extrapolate from the observation.
Newton's philosophy of science is very interesting, and quite
different from modern accounts of the scientific method. He sees it
as a purely deductive process, not hypothetico-deductive as in
modern accounts.
How can we deduce propositions without axioms/hypotheses (implicit or
explicit).
What physicists lacks is the notion of model, which is somehow
intermediate between a theory and a reality.
Bruno
I doubt that Newton would have much sympathy with Bruno's a
prioristic methods.
Bruce
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.
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.
