On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 4:42:18 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > Things are much simpler if we assume mechanism, like Everett. But Everett > stil assumes some universal wave, which, when we assume mechanism, must be > justify by the mechanist first person indeterminacy in arithmetic. > > To apply physics, “shut up and calculate” is all good, but in Metaphysics, > it is pure authoritative argument to prevent finding and testing possible > solutions of the problem. That is doubly true in the Mechanist frame, > probably because the Mechanist solution is troubling for those who are > physicalist, and believe in an ontological physical universe. > > The mechanist solution is empirically testable, so let us test it. Up to > now, Mechanism is the only theory which explains the appearance without > eliminating consciousness and its mechanist explanation (the theology G* > and its variants). > > With Mechanism, physics is not the fundamental science. Physics is reduced > to a sort of arithmetical probability/credibility machine theory. > > Bruno >
This distinction between what is physical and what is mechanistic seems somewhat contrived. I suppose in the philosophical world this is what people do, where now there are people into meta-metaphysics. I am not an enemy of philosophy quite in the way Feynman was or his followers as Weinberg, but I do think science is best with a minimum of metaphysics. LC -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8994f00e-474d-4593-92da-a525b7814f3a%40googlegroups.com.
