Le mer. 30 mai 2018 à 20:29, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> a écrit :
> > > On 5/30/2018 3:18 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2018-05-30 11:27 GMT+02:00 Lawrence Crowell < > [email protected]>: > >> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 1:25:19 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> You miss my point that no one, no physicists, no philosopher, starts out >>> by defining "primary matter". It is your invention as a straw man to be >>> defeated by computationalism. Some physicists and some philosophers may >>> suppose that the stuff described by physics is enough to explain the world >>> we observe; but most also suppose that it is not "primary". They look for >>> a deeper more unified ur-stuff and many physicists have followed Wheeler >>> and Tegmark in thinking of the equations of mathematical physics as simply >>> defining the ur-stuff. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> This and other old philosophical ideas are of no utility in physics. >> There is no physical meaning to terms such as primary matter. >> > > Primary matter is a metaphysical idea about the reality... so of course it > is of no utility in physics... but physics don't tell us anything about > what is reality. > > > Yet it tells us about how the world works and what we can and can't do. > So what exactly would it add know "what is reality". This is exactly like > my point about consciousness. When we can predict, construct, manipulate, > consciousness the way we do the physical world, then the "hard problem" of > consciousness will be as irrelevant as elan vitale is to biology and > "primary matter" is to physics. > > > Everythingism are metaphysical idea about what is reality... so if your > concern is only in utility, philosophy doesn't concern you... > > Materialism, physicalim, computationalism, deism etc are metaphysical, > philosophical and about what reality is... physics is about prediction on > the reality, not about what ultimately reality is... it answers how, not > what and why... > > The problem is with people equating physics whith physicalism... they're > not the same, one is a metaphysical idea about the nature of reality. > > > But I'm suggesting to you that this metaphysical idea is empty if it has > no consequences, but if it does have consequences then it's physics and > not metaphysics. > That is your point of view which I do not share... You're like people who don't like arts and find that empty... As long as you're not imposing your view, I'm fine with it. Quentin > 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. > -- 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.
