On Sunday, October 21, 2018 at 7:57:02 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 21 Oct 2018, at 00:55, Brent Meeker <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > On 10/20/2018 3:29 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 2:51:30 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/20/2018 11:24 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 10:33:04 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/19/2018 11:32 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >> On 19 Oct 2018, at 23:43, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 10/19/2018 11:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> I work with people who studied religion all the times. You seem >>> unaware that we can doubt Aristotle theology. >>> >> You seem unaware that there is not such thing. Your "Aristotle >>> theology" is a straw man you invented to beat with stick labelled "primary >>> matter". I'll bet that if you ask a 100 physicists, "Do you believe in >>> primary matter." you'll get 99 answers of "What??” >>> > Because they have been brainwashed since about 529, into the idea that >>> “matter” is “primary matter”. >>> >>> No, they are not. It's simply irrelevant to them. They seek theories >>> to explain phenomena. They don't start by assuming some metaphysics. >>> They only care that the theory works. That's why it has been physicists >>> like Wheeler, Tegmark, Hawking,...who have wondered why equations work >>> at all. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> >> >> What physicist doesn't assume some metaphysical assumptions? >> >> The 3 mentioned above talked (1 still talks) about metaphysics all the >> time, of course. Even if they adopt a theory that someone else created, >> they are adopting the metaphysics of that theory. When Sean Carroll writes >> about the reality of the wave function, that's some heavy metaphysics. >> >> >> Sounds like physics to me. Does Carroll say the wave function is >> "primary", that there can be nothing more fundamental? No, he doesn't. He >> knows that QM >> and GR are incompatible and he no doubt hopes to find something that >> explains both of them. Does he care whether that new thing is "primary"? >> No. >> >> Brent >> >> > https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1051238813236752386 > > Sean Carroll @seanmcarroll > > "Realism about the wave function is a good idea. (Even better, … about > the quantum state, but I won’t be picky.)" > re: Realism about the Wave Function > http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/15153/ > > >> >> Every language has a metaphysics. >> >> - pt >> >> "The world does not speak. Only we do. The world can, once we have > programmed ourselves with a language, cause us to hold beliefs. But it > cannot propose a language for us to speak." > -- Richard Rorty, Contingency of Language > [pdf] http://web.augsburg.edu/~crockett/120/Rorty-Contingency.pdf > > > > Every language has an ontology, i.e. things it talks about. > > > Not correct. The language use some ontology (the alphabet, words), but the > language per se is independent of an ontology. It does not talk about > anything. For this you need to select some formula in the language, and > assume that they are talking about something, which is always assumed. > > > > But that doesn't mean that it assumes those things are primary. Bruno > wants to criticize physicists for assuming there's something he calls > "primitive matter”. > > > Not at all. I criticise physicalist. Physicists, on the contrary, avoid > metaphysics. > > There is not an atom of critics from may part on physics. Only on > physicalism. > My work has not been criticised by any physicists member of the three jury > called to judge the work (for the PhD, the price, etc.). > > Critics comes from non-agnostic atheists believer (christian radicals in > disguise). They are the one for which a primary universe is a dogma. > Physicists do not do that. > > > > > But this is just his straw man. In fact physicists almost uniformly > assume that the stuff in their theories has some deeper explanation and is > NOT primary. > > > Yes, that is why they have appreciate my work, in general. The critics > comes only from “philosophers”, even only the materialist marxist one. > Only. The serious people see that I give a testable theory. I show that > some point in metaphysics are testable. >
*Please state a metaphysical principle or proposition, and the method for testing it. AG * > > > There's a difference between saying a metaphysics assumes things and > saying that it assumes things which are "primary”. > > > Metaphysics, theology, search the primary things. A things is primary when > it HAS TO BE assumed. The universal machinery can be proved to be primary > in that sense. But the physicalist consider that only the physical > universal machineries are primary, and refuse the idea that the physical > appearance can be explained by simpler idea not involving an ontological > commitment in a physical universe. > > Somehow, you make my point here, Brent. > > Bruno > > > > > > 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > 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.
