From: *Bruno Marchal* <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
On 1 Jun 2018, at 03:25, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
From: *Bruno Marchal* <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> On 31 May 2018, at 02:33, Brent Meeker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Of course something can make some computations unreal, namely
their non-existence in the world.
Which World?
Rhetorical flourish!
Not at all.
You know, God was a nickname for “the ultimate truth we are searching
when doing fundamental science”, and the “blasphemy” was for any
invocation and special use of of concept like “true”, “reality”,
“world” … the use of this is invalid. You could as well invoke miracle.
So you lack some background in metaphysics and/or what is the
scientific attitude.
I think the intellectual battles of the classical era are well behind
us. It was realized a long time ago that these idea are ultimately
sterile, and the scientific approach has gradually achieved dominance. I
think you should abandon this outmoded framework for your thinking and
join the rest of the world in the 21st century.
You cannot appeal to an ontological commitment in science.
There is no ontological commitment in phenomenology -- unless you
want to deny the existence of consciousness….
Ah, so you think that the notion of world used by Brent was
phenomenological?
That makes my point in that case, as physics must becomes
phenomenological, which was all I needed to justify.
Physics is, as is all science, based on observation and experiment. The
phenomena are the subject matter of science. But the phenomena are
matters of sensory experience, not of abstract axiomatic reasoning.
That, too, was realized a long time ago when Kant's attempt to make
3-dimensional Euclidean space a necessity of thought failed.
Here is you god, selecting an histories, or a class of histories.
How? Magical power? Then I can no more say yes to the doctor without
praying or something.
More empty rhetorical flourishes. We know that when you resort to
your store of empty rhetorical flourishes that you have no answer to
the substantive points that have been made.
*That* is pure rhetorical flourishes. You avoid the reasoning.
What reasoning? You did not offer any reasoning. Merely assertions and
rhetorical flourishes.
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.
