> On 1 Jun 2018, at 11:46, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> On 1 Jun 2018, at 03:25, Bruce Kellett < >>> <mailto:[email protected]>[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, Which ideas? The metaphysical question? Yes, the answer to them have been imposed by terror since 1500 years. That has not solved them. > and the scientific approach has gradually achieved dominance. In the natural science, thanks to the Enlightenment period, made possible by the jews and muslim metaphysicians who were able to continue the research in the Middle east for six more centuries. But in theology, the least we can say is that the scientific approach has not yet taken dominance. The choice is still between an inconsistent materialism or the pope-ayatollah (the boss is right) kind of theories. You are not helping science by abandoning the field to the professional con men. > I think you should abandon this outmoded framework for your thinking and join > the rest of the world in the 21st century. You are the one abandoning the scientific attitude here. > > > >>>> 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. Not the fundamental science, which try to infer some simple relations accounting for the origin and phenomena. > 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. Kant failed? Show me the paper. Only his premise based on some naive interpretation of the physics of his time was false. Its main idea is implied and generalised by Mechanism. And the opposite idea requires a non Turing emulable machine in the body, which is usually considered as speculative (no evidence at all, and a lot of strong counterevidences, like the failure of physicalism to link mind and matter since very long). By saying this you do show that you identify science with Aristotelian Materialism. That is bad science, and bad philosophy. > > > >>>> 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. That is simply a lie. All what I say has been verified multiple times by independent people in different countries, and I have given an informal version, accessible to kids, in this list. The reasoning is exposed notably here: B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International System Administration and Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html Ask if you want more detailed version. Now, I can also reverse the charge. If you believe in both materialism and mechanism, which I have shown to be inconsistent when taken together, then provide the counter-example: a physicalist theory of mind in which we can say yes doctor, and which does not violate Church’s thesis. Bruno > > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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.
