On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 5:55:13 PM UTC-6, [email protected] wrote: > > > > 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 >> >
But what about Einsteinian relativity and gravity where rulers are bent, shrunk, and lengthened? - 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.
