On Sunday, October 21, 2018 at 7:57:02 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 21 Oct 2018, at 00:55, Brent Meeker <meek...@verizon.net <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 <meek...@verizon.net> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com > <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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
