On 23 Apr 2017, at 09:57, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 23/04/2017 5:44 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le 23 avr. 2017 09:16, "Bruce Kellett" <[email protected]>
a écrit :
On 23/04/2017 5:05 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
The only direct experience I have is me, not physics.
That is solipsism.
No that would be if i'd say only me is real... That's not what I
said. It's a fact that the only *direct* experience I have is me.
And you are a physical being.... If you thereby deny the existence
of the external objective world, that is most certainly solipsism.
Sure. But you can still deny the existence of a primary physical
objective world.
Computationalism admits the existence of an external reality:
arithmetic. And is hardly solipsist given that he accepts the
existence of infinitely many "others" there.
Physics is an explanation of my experiences, not reality.
So your experiences are not real? If physics explains your
experiences, then physics is primary --
No, physics as such use mathematics to explain, and rely on rules
of mathematics to ascertain its explanations, as such it is dubious
to make it primary. For it to be primary, physics should not rely
on inference rules. You can't use an higher level to explain the
lower feature, because if in the lower is primary, everything
should reduce to it.
What basis do you have for claiming that the rules of inference are
of a higher level? They are perfectly easily understood as deriving
from experience -- i.e., from our experience of an objective
external world.
You can experience an external world (like a physical reality or an
arithmetical reality), but you cannot experience its "objectiveness".
You need a theory, and the notion of objectiveness is relative to the
choice of the theory.
In fact, where else could they come from? Do you have direct
intuitive access to the higher realms of Platonia? What facility do
you use for this direct intuition? And how do you verify its
reliability? Inference rules, and mathematics, derive fundamentally
from experience, and that is our experience of the physical world.
same ambiguity as above.
Bruno
You are doing nothing more than making assertions here -- there is
no argument, no evidence, no substantiation for your claims.
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 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.
