> On 29 Feb 2020, at 13:43, PGC <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Saturday, February 29, 2020 at 10:04:16 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 29 Feb 2020, at 03:45, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >> <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2/28/2020 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>>> On 28 Feb 2020, at 13:05, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> Only Platonists jump to a belief that there is a ghostly world of abstract >>>> entities called "numbers" that exists outside of matter (whether that >>>> matter is your brain or your computer). >>> >>> We don’t need this either. We need only to believe that 2+3 = 5, or that >>> phi_i(j) converges or not converges. The philosophy and metaphysics come >>> after. >>> If not, it is like studying the working of my brain to convince myself that >>> I understand correctly that 2+2=4. That does not work, because my brain >>> study is based on my belief that 2+2=4. >>> You could aswel say that Einstein’s theory is circular, because you want to >>> explain 2+2=4 with Matter, but Einstein’s theory use the numbers, and >>> assumes they do what they need to give sense to, say, E= mc^2. >>> >>> At some point, people have to put *all* the hypothesis on the table, so >>> that it is clear what is assumed, and what is derived. >> >> That doesn't really help because it leaves open the relation between what is >> assumed to be true and what is actually. That's why reasoning that is not >> grounded in ostensive definitions and empirically tested is just a game. > > Accepting the Aristotelian credo, but I have never found one empirical or > theoretical evidence for it, > > Then don't accept food, water, or any other material substance as primary.
Indeed. > Use abstractions or images in your mind. Jesus also gave up all material > possessions to reflect his faith in mechanism. The Christian thing was just > advertising. > > and then with Mechanism we know, or should know, that it does not make sense. > Physicalism + mechanism gives magical power to “matter” by enabling it to > prevent a Turing machine, 100% similar to you at the relevant description > level, to be conscious. This raise the question if some holy water is not > also needed, or the will of some supernatural creature … > > Ostensive definition works very well, but not in computationalist metaphysics, > > The "metaphysics" where everybody states "reality is the thing we search" but > actually is certain of what is real and what isn't + has the authority to > impose it, just because the boss is always right. Yeah, we all know that > "metaphysics". PGC The whole point of doing “metaphysics” with the scientific attitude is in never claiming truth, and always be open for refutation. A metaphysician or theologian keeping this attitude cannot be certain of what is real. Bruno > > > -- > 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/a68e17bf-a8e7-4fb8-95f0-777f1ab63fd1%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a68e17bf-a8e7-4fb8-95f0-777f1ab63fd1%40googlegroups.com?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/9BCD334E-8366-4CBE-8388-A81DD9F37392%40ulb.ac.be.
