On Sunday, March 1, 2020 at 2:44:05 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 29 Feb 2020, at 13:43, PGC <multipl...@gmail.com <javascript:>> 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 < >> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2/28/2020 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 28 Feb 2020, at 13:05, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> 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. >
Then you are neither a practitioner of metaphysics with a scientific attitude, nor a theologian as you posts on Holmes, Tintin etc. in this thread quite openly reveal an attitude that apparently can separate truth from fiction without problems. Applying logic to fiction in making statements regarding reality is evidence that you regularly confuse truth with personal fictions. PGC -- 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/7ddefdf9-6331-4284-b412-10cbe7ae57de%40googlegroups.com.
