On 4/09/2017 9:15 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Sep 2017, at 18:46, Brent Meeker wrote:
On the contrary, we can only speculate on a primary physical reality
for which there are no evidences at all.
You can't prove primary arithmetic either.
Indeed.
But there are many evidences that 2+2=4. There are no evidence for
primary matter. Not one.
"Primary" is just a word you stick on "physical" to make it seem
inaccessible. I don't need to prove the physical, I observe it.
?
Nobody can observe a metaphysical idea. You can observe matter, and
that is an evidence for matter, not for primary matter.
Primary means "not deducible" from something else.
Bruno, you are just playing with words. I observe matter - that is
evidence for matter, so the observation is primary, not the matter. But
then I assume matter and deduce that I will observe it - so the matter
becomes primary. You claim arithmetic is primary, because 2+2=4
independent of you and me. But I can deduce arithmetic from observation,
making observation primary again, and arithmetic merely derivative. But
then I assume that matter is primary - I can then deduce both
observation and arithmetic.
It is all a matter of choice. You choose to make arithmetic primary, but
you can't prove that this is necessarily the case. I can assume that
quarks and electrons, etc, are primary, and else follows from this.
Maybe I can't prove that either, but I have a hell of a lot more
evidence for the possibility of deriving arithmetic from the existence
of matter than you have of proving the existence of quarks from pure
arithmetic. The evidence is all in my favour.
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.
