Hi Matt > Matt said: > I'm not sure what's supposed to be causally independent of physics. This > seems to me to suggest that we cannot give a physical description of > everything, but I'm pretty sure that if you can't give a physical > description of a thing, it doesn't exist.
DM: A printed poem is a physical thing, but do physical descriptions give a full description of its existence? Anyway what does physical description mean? Can you really draw a disctinction between physical description and some other form? Is charm and spin a clearly physical form of description? We describe particles in terms of waves in a very metaphorical way as there are no such waves manifest by the movement of particles (I am assuming you know something about actual experiments in particle physics to get this). DM: What is this weird platonic desire to identify certain aspects of our experience as non-existing? If we can talk about something it exists.Sure we might want to say some things have what we call a physical existence and other patterns do not, and that there are differences between patterns one set of people recognise and what others recognise, but they are all patterns/objects of knowledge with all kinds of varieties of existential status. Physicalism is a funny fetish for a post-modernist! Unless you're real careful with your definition. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
