Brian,
Not a bad argument, but here are a few possible objections I thought of.
--Is D *really* an object of thought? Some would say no, based on the
paradoxical conclusions that can be reached by considering D. "How is
it an object of thought if we cannot consistently reason about it?"
(Treatin
Hi Ronald,
Some people, myself included, would be a lot more comfortable with the
whole inflation idea if a) there where some experimental evidence of the
scalar fields that are required and b) some sound explanation where given as
to how an in principle unknowable phenomenon - the BB sing
http://www.starlarvae.org/index.html
Talking up advanced theology!!
"The two-party system (evolution vs. intelligent design) is an
obsolete paradigm".
I could just about agree with that
cheers,
Kim
-
On 21/01/2009, at 6:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 19 Jan 2009, at 13:56, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
>> But Brent was momentarily speaking of materialism - materialism
>> doesn't acknowledge any form of comp "immateriality" except
>> according to the (probably) false mind/body dualism, where
On 19 Jan 2009, at 13:56, Kim Jones wrote:
> But Brent was momentarily speaking of materialism - materialism
> doesn't acknowledge any form of comp "immateriality" except
> according to the (probably) false mind/body dualism, where the mind
> is allowed to be an ethereal emanation of the
I do not see the Inflation paradigm as ad-hoc, for it explains the
flatness, Horizon problem and lack of early universe relics better
than any other to date. Now the Big Bang may be replaced by
oscillating solutions from LQG or other theories, but AFAIK they still
need an Inflation period.
6 matches
Mail list logo
