[email protected] wrote at 07/07/2011 03:21 PM: > all that a > measurement can do (and it's quite enough, and sometimes--very likely > in this case--both intriguing and well worth celebrating), with > regard to a philosophical stance, is provide evidence (possibly, > as you seem to me to suggest here, categorical evidence) that the > philosophical stance S and the theory T in which the measurement > is embedded are incompatible
You have to be careful saying things like that on this list, though, because it's tantamount to giving philosophical stances a stature on par with scientific theories. OMG! Personally, I think philosophy is on par with science. But they are in two different categories. Science is limited to negation, the demonstration that some sentence (or class of sentences) does not hold (here, now, anywhere, anywhen). Philosophy is limited to inference, the derivation of sentences from others (ab-, in-, or de-). Both are necessary for any attempt at knowledge. Perhaps Hawking and Mlodinow meant to say that "metaphysics is dead", which would be a much more appropriate assertion for people who study the physical stories that are steadily replacing our creation myths. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
