On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 11:13:10 PM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 3:30:46 PM UTC-6, [email protected] > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 6:57:33 PM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 10:07:13 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11 Dec 2018, at 20:53, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 7:30:32 PM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:02:52 PM UTC-6, [email protected] >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 6:44:34 PM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 12:32:51 PM UTC-6, >>>>>>> [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * As for physicists being materialists in the sense of believing >>>>>>>> there is nothing underlying matter as its cause, I have never heard >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> position articulated by any physicist, in person or on the Internet. >>>>>>>> AG * >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Victor Stenger >>>>>>> *Materialism Deconstructed?* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/materialism-deconstructed_b_2228362.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *I was once a member of Vic's discussion group. Vic believed in the >>>>>> reality of matter, in the sense that if you kick it, it kicks back. But >>>>>> he >>>>>> didn't deny the possibility that there could be something more >>>>>> fundamental >>>>>> underlying matter. This denial is what Bruno claims is the materialist >>>>>> position, but it surely wasn't Vic's position. You know this, of course, >>>>>> being a member of that group. Right? AG* >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - pt >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I hosted Vic in Dallas in 2014 for a talk. I got to know him fairly >>>>> personally . >>>>> >>>>> Homages to philosophical materialism ("matter is the fundamental >>>>> substance in nature") is in his books. *Timeless Reality* in >>>>> particular. >>>>> >>>>> One can be open-minded, or *ironist *in Rorty's definition [ >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironism ], and he was that. >>>>> >>>>> But despite all the "models" talk, I would confidently say he was >>>>> always a hardcore materialist. >>>>> >>>>> - pt >>>>> >>>> >>>> Show me one instance, just one, where Vic denied something causal and >>>> unknown underlying the existence of matter? This is Bruno's model of >>>> materialism among physicists but it clearly doesn't apply to Vic. AG >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You might read my favorite book by Vic, which is “The comprehensible >>>> cosmos”. There, it shows something very platonist-like: he shows that >>>> physics can be derived from few principles. Unfortunately, he seems to >>>> ignore the mind-body problem, and so he does not explain how that physical >>>> reality can select our consciousness in way corresponding to what we >>>> observe. So there is still a bit of magic in his explanation, or of lack >>>> of >>>> rigour (by not seeing that he uses some non-mechanist theory to allow a >>>> physical reality to do that selection, instead of deducing his first >>>> physical principle from arithmetic and machine’s psychology, as we have to >>>> do with mechanism. That is even more apparent in his less interesting >>>> books >>>> like “God the paling hypothesis, (where I agree with the content, but find >>>> it bad because he identifies theology with the current theology which >>>> assumes a creator but also a creation). >>>> >>>> So Vic approach is still materialist or at least physicalist. But he >>>> was on the right track, and would have understood that his attempt to >>>> comprehend the cosmos was only a beginning: to work well, he would need to >>>> derive the cosmos from machine statistical experience in arithmetic. >>>> >>>> Bruno >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> It is interesting that you raise the part of Stenger's writings that >>> have to do with things like symmetry, point-of-view invariance (POVI) in >>> the foundations of physics. That is the part I didn't get at all at the >>> time (now some years ago) and I don't get it (I reject it) even more now. >>> It was like *So you are a Platonist now?* :) >>> >> >> *I brought up POVI, not Bruno who IS a Platonist. POVI is simple; there >> can no "laws of physics" to discover if they depend on which direction one >> is looking. AG* >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> - pt >>> >> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(chemistry) ? >
What's your point? AG > > - pt > -- 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.
