> On 2 Jun 2019, at 20:38, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 6/2/2019 12:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 1 Jun 2019, at 17:54, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> <[email protected]> >>> <mailto:[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. > > You seem to be in a bubble of rationalism. Everything is about axioms and > assumptions and words. Ostensive definitions point outside that bubble. > They are fuzzy, but they are not assumptions...they are based on, consist of, > evidence.
Given that I tend empiricism, and that I explain that it is the observation of the universe which counts, that is an astonishing remark. Mechanism explains the appearance of the physical universe from an arithmetical web of quantum-like statistically interfering computations, and the observation of nature confirms mechanism, and add doubts to the idea that a physical universe is a thing for itself, independent of the number's experiences. > >> >> 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, > > A straw man. Nothing I wrote referred to primitive matter. OK. Then we agree. My critics has never been on physics, only on physicalism, and only when taken together with Digital Mechanism. Bruno > > Brent > >> 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] >>> <mailto:[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 >>> >>> <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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7d5c6b57-a611-ef18-e3e0-7f12ed271ad4%40verizon.net > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7d5c6b57-a611-ef18-e3e0-7f12ed271ad4%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/C20484E8-36B8-4345-8F27-F49FC090DD26%40ulb.ac.be.
