peterdjones wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
peterdjones wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
peterdjones wrote:
[...]
(To put it another way: the point is to explain
experience. Physicalism explains non-experience
of HP universes by saying they don't exist. MM appeals
to ad-hoc hypotheses about
Le 24-mars-06, à 17:19, 1Z a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 18-mars-06, à 16:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
If every mathematical structure exists , then mathematical structures
consisting
of a counterpart of me plus a Harry Potter universe exist. Yet this
is not
observed. Of
Le 25-mars-06, à 23:13, 1Z a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 25-mars-06, à 19:17, 1Z a écrit :
You will miss the consequences of the assumption. All science is
based
on implicit or explicit assumption, related to (non definable)
world-views.
Almost all science is based on the
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 25-mars-06, à 23:13, 1Z a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 25-mars-06, à 19:17, 1Z a écrit :
You will miss the consequences of the assumption. All science is
based
on implicit or explicit assumption, related to (non definable)
world-views.
Almost all
Vic Stenger's site at http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/index.html
has much well-presented information and speculation. Thanks for the
reference.
Norman Samish
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You would like this book by Vic Stenger:
Le 27-mars-06, à 16:07, 1Z a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 25-mars-06, à 23:13, 1Z a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 25-mars-06, à 19:17, 1Z a écrit :
You will miss the consequences of the assumption. All science is
based
on implicit or explicit assumption, related to (non
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 27-mars-06, à 16:07, 1Z a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 25-mars-06, à 23:13, 1Z a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 25-mars-06, à 19:17, 1Z a écrit :
You will miss the consequences of the assumption. All science is
based
on implicit or explicit
Brent Meeker wrote:
You would like this book by Vic Stenger:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/nothing.html
Yes, I am aaware of his work.
Vic defends the view that physical laws are based on point-of-view-invariance;
that is a constraint we place on what we call a law. As
Brent Meeker wrote:
Vic defends the view that physical laws are based
on point-of-view-invariance;
that is a constraint we place on what we call a
law. As such, they are not
really laws constraining nature, they are
symmetries that are an absence of
'law' (i.e. structure).
Bruno Marchal wrote:
...
Study the UDA. It is a reasoning which show you are precisely wrong
here. If you want I can explain it step by step. UDA shows that weak
materialism (the existence of some primitive stuff) and
computationalism (or just self-referential correctness) are
1Z wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
You would like this book by Vic Stenger:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/nothing.html
Yes, I am aaware of his work.
Vic defends the view that physical laws are based on point-of-view-invariance;
that is a constraint we place on what we
Georges, Peter:
Arriving at a consistent and reasonable-sounding theory of personal identity
in the multiverse is difficult, to say the least. Some list members in the
past have argued that all copies of a person have an equal claim to that
person's identity, so that we should feel
12 matches
Mail list logo
