On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 6:43:24 AM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > 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? >
*Principle of Relativity; the laws of physics are frame independent. 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.
