On 04 Dec 2016, at 19:45, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]>
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?
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. First, it implies you know something for
which you
have no evidence.
Second, brings in a lot of baggage about God: He's a
powerful person. He demands we enforce certain laws. He hates the
same
people we dislike. He rewards worship....
You are implying specific definitions of God (I would guess Judaic-
Christian).
I just invented a new religion. Here's the sacred text:
God is the explanation for matter existing and behaving the way it
does. It is not possible to know God.
Ah! Your religion is comp-compatible. The definition of God is still a
bit limited (to physical events), as God might also be the explanation
for consciousness existing, or for integers existing. With
computationalism it is possible to experience God, but not in a
communicable way, even to oneself: we can't be sure, only God knows
that such a belief *is* indeed knowledge.
Note that your definition is compatible with physicalism too
(damned!). Take God = Matter (that explains matter, albeit trivially)
and a physicalist will claim that this should be able to explain
consciousness too, which indeed could be the case, if computationalism
is wrong.
Bruno
Does your argument hold for my religion?
Telmo.
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 everything-
[email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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.
