On 03 Dec 2016, at 18:03, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/3/2016 12:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Physicists confuse physics and metaphysics, by not seeing that
Aristotelianism is incompatible with Mechanism, and by confusing
mechanism and materialism. Yes, that happens often for fundamental
researcher often after retirement, except for philosophers, which
confuses theology with Aristotelian theology. René Thom explained
well that physicists confuse the notion of explanation and
prediction. Physicists are good in prediction, but naive about
explanation.
How do you know an explanation is a good one unless it provides good
predictions?
An explanation provides good predictions, and should be abandonned if
it gives wrong one.
But a good explanation does not hide problems under the rugs. A good
explanation explains a lot from a few. With computationalism, I proved
in all details that physics missed all predictions, without using an
identity link which simply asks for magical infinities. Physics works
well, but under supersimplifying assumptions which are just refuted
today (although the the antic platonisr already get that point, but in
not a thorough communicable way. They couldn't because they miss the
universal machine.
Physicalism *is¨a form of creationism. They take the statement that
"there is a physical universe" as an explanation of why there is a
physical universe. They replace "God made it", by "it exists", but
that is not better.
Sure it is. It is better not to add imaginary beings to your
explanation for several reasons.
I agree with you. The point is that a physical universe, conceived as
*primary*, is such an imaginary object. Nobody has ever given the
slightest evidence for such an object, nor any crtoerion for assessing
it, and no serious work of physics mention it, and science is born
from taking some distance with such quasi innate intuition. They are
very useful, but utility is not a criterion of truth, per se.
Only Einstein seems to assumes a physical universe, but immediately
acknowledge that this is religion, an act of fait from his part, a
feeling of wonder (about something which today is reduced to another
act of fait, yet much weaker, the beliefs in addition and
mutltuplication of natural numbers + a principle of invariance of
first person for a minute set of self-transformations.
First, it implies you know something for which you have no evidence.
Indeed.
Second, brings in a lot of baggage about God: He's a powerful person.
Only in some tradition, which we have evidence has nothing to do with
religion or god, but with controlling and manipulating people. Why do
you stick to the charlatans, without ever coming back to the original
science?
The greek theology has been extremely fertile, it gave rise to math
and physics. but physics, as a fundamental theory, is refuted: it just
cannot explain consciousness without invoking magical metaphysical
notions, like primary matter, never seen, never explained.
He demands we enforce certain laws. He hates the same people we
dislike. He rewards worship....
Forget the mythes and come back to science.
Bruno
Brent
--
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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
