On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 11:41:13 PM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 5:21:15 PM UTC-6, [email protected] > wrote: >> >> >> >> 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 >>> >> > > > If laws of physics have to have "directional symmetry" (a leap of faith), > then why don't the laws of chemistry? >
*No faith involved; just common sense, possibly with a few exceptions. What value would Newtonian gravity have for space probes if the equations depended on the direction of observation? AG * > > Science (the study of all the natural world) is more than just physics. > There is chemistry and biology, for example, as well. > > - 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.
