> On 1 Jun 2019, at 17:54, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 6/1/2019 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> No. The early definition of Earth was a flat surface, and people believed >>>> this by ostentation. >>> >>> Now you're just twisting words. Ostensive definition is by pointing. One >>> can't believe a proposition by ostentation. >> >> Semantic play. If you are right, then we cannot believe that ostensive >> definition makes sense. > > Ostensive definitions are semantic.
OK. But no sound machine can define its semantic. Ostensive definition requires an act of fait in some undefinable reality. > You point down where you're standing and say "Earth"...that's how children > learn words. And having defined Earth as that which we stand on we have not > believed anything about it's overall shape. Exactly like the god of the (Neo)platonists. They assume some Reality (called God) at the origin of everything, and they do not assume much more, but propose theories and means to make sense of them. When a theologian has the scientific attitude, no one could know what is his personal opinion on that matter. He only propose principles or theories, shows the consequences and the means to test the theory. Here the materialist often fails, as they talk like if they knew primitive matter exists, and never propose anyway to test that idea. It is normal, because there are evidence and reason why the brain has not been prepared/“programmed”, through evolution, to handle the metaphysical subtleties. Bruno > > >> >> >> >>> >>>> Similarly, even Christians have argued that God cannot be omniscient and >>>> omnipotent when they discovered that those notion were inconsistent. The >>>> correspondence between cantor and a bishop shows that christians can have >>>> a conception of God quite similar to the neoplatonician one, still in the >>>> 19th century. Only atheists defends the fairy tale religion, I guess to >>>> just mock it. >>>> >>>> I got problems with "atheist scientist” which are shocked by the >>>> vocabulary. For a very long period, the terms which shocked them was not >>>> God, but “consciousness” or even “mind”. That is because they confuse >>>> physics and metaphysics, and that is rather natural after 1500 years of >>>> metaphysical brainwashing. >>>> >>>> If you have just one evidence for a physically *primitive* reality, you >>>> can show it to us. >>> >>> Can you show one evidence for anything being *primitive* reality? >> >> Yes. But you might need to revise some of my papers. If all of S4Grz1, Z1* >> and X1* depart from nature, that would be an evidence that the physical >> reality is primitive. >> >> >> >> >>> As you often say in other contexts, belief in a primitive reality is a >>> matter of faith… >> >> Belief in any reality different that the consciousness here and now require >> faith. But being primitive or not is theorisable and testable >> >> >> >>> except more cautious scientists call it an hypothesis, not a leap of faith. >> >> There is a subtle difference between faith and hypothesis. It is typically >> the difference between reasoning with the mechanist hypothesis (and stating >> neutral or mute about the personal belief we can have or not), and saying >> “yes” to the doctor in a concrete real life situation. Faith is when some >> aspect of your first person experience depends crucially on the truth of an >> hypothesis. It is the difference between jumping from a cliff with an >> elastic, and just assuming the elastic is good enough without jumping. >> >> >> >> >>> >>>> The ostensive physical reality itself is no more an evidence that physics >>>> is the fundamental science that the sharable introspection would be an >>>> evidence that reality is psychological. >>> >>> You use the word "fundamental" as though it were a sacred benediction. You >>> don't know what is fundamental...or even if anything is fundamental. So >>> you are merely inventing a pseuedo-religion of physicalism in order to >>> criticize it and pretend you are above it. >> >> ? >> >> Fundamental, primitive … means “has to be assumed”. > > Then I would say nothing is primitive. That's the point of my virtuous > circle. > >> >> We believe that he principle X is fundamental or primitive if we believe >> that it cannot be recovered from other principle. >> >> Physicalism assumes that some physical principle have to be assumed to get a >> physical reality, like vitalism assumed that some aspect of life cannot be >> recovered, even in principle, by another science like chemistry or physics. > > No. Physical things don't have to be assumed, they are defined ostensively. > It is only the theorizing that hypothesizes principles. > >> >> I guess you agree that vitalism is abandoned, and that most scientist accept >> that biology can be reduced to quantum mechanics, even if only in principle. >> >> With mechanism, the same occurs for the physical reality. It is explain, in >> principle, by very elementary arithmetic. >> >> When interested in fundamental studies, that is part of the subject: what >> are the simple principles that we have to assume to explain the whole >> picture. > > But you've then already assumed there is a hierarchy of explanation. > > 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 [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4d728998-3ac5-5840-4591-422df6d5931f%40verizon.net. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/BAFCDC29-CE8B-48F4-B779-E38A61A369E9%40ulb.ac.be.
