On 02 Sep 2010, at 04:15, Rex Allen wrote:
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:14 AM, Quentin Anciaux
wrote:
Euh..
I'm sorry but where did I state my belief in the preceeding
message ? Where
did I spoke about physicalism ?
I spoke about "idealist accidentalism" in answer to Bruno who said
wrongl
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> In some case the metatheory can itself be an object of the theory. For
> example zoologists are animal (but botanist are not plant). Since Gödel we
> know that the theory "Peano Arithmetic" can be studied "in" Peano
> arithmetic. And monist
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 02 Sep 2010, at 04:15, Rex Allen wrote:
>>
>> Accidentalism, and...what else? Refraining from metaphysical
>> speculation altogether?
>
> That is the good idea!
Easier said than done! I've sworn it off 4 times this year...but here
I a
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>> I did read your preceeding message. And what I got out of it is that
>> if you consistently apply your evaluative criteria, you should
>> conclude that physicalism, platonism, deism, theism, arithmetical
>> realism and all other metaphy
2010/9/2 Rex Allen
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Quentin Anciaux
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I did read your preceeding message. And what I got out of it is that
> >> if you consistently apply your evaluative criteria, you should
> >> conclude that physicalism, platonism, deism, theism, arithmetical
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > Hi! I'm trying to remove this universal ontological status altogether.
> > Once it's gone, everything exists almost trivially, as it shouldn't be
> > hard to find the Y. For instance, X exists in the singleton set { X }.
>
> In which theory of set? I would say that the term
On 1 September 2010 21:51, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> In
> other words, it would appear that he cannot, with pure logic, rule out
> the possibility - even to himself - of Logical-David being merely a
> zombie.
>
> No. Even the zombie can see that he cannot. That's why the
> self-referentially correc
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 5:12 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>>
>> What new fact could possibly refute physicalism??? (or mathematical
>> platonism, or whatever)
>
> How could physicalism account for a big giant hand of god (?) appearing in
> the sky ? :D
Would you believe it was the hand of god? Wh
On 02 Sep 2010, at 10:03, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 02 Sep 2010, at 04:15, Rex Allen wrote:
Accidentalism, and...what else? Refraining from metaphysical
speculation altogether?
That is the good idea!
Easier said than done! I've sworn it
On 02 Sep 2010, at 10:01, Rex Allen wrote:
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
In some case the metatheory can itself be an object of the theory.
For
example zoologists are animal (but botanist are not plant). Since
Gödel we
know that the theory "Peano Arithmetic" can
What about reductive maximalism? :) The physicalist has the problem
that he doesn't know what the right level is, as in his world, all
observationally equivalent explanations are interchangeable. What he
can do is appeal to simplicity in reducing everything to some atomic
objects, which are then re
On 02 Sep 2010, at 17:02, David Nyman wrote:
On 1 September 2010 21:51, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In
other words, it would appear that he cannot, with pure logic, rule
out
the possibility - even to himself - of Logical-David being merely a
zombie.
No. Even the zombie can see that he cannot. T
On 02 Sep 2010, at 15:52, Sami Perttu wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi! I'm trying to remove this universal ontological status
altogether.
Once it's gone, everything exists almost trivially, as it
shouldn't be
hard to find the Y. For instance, X exists in the singleton set
{ X }.
In which
on 02.09.2010 17:57 Bruno Marchal said the following:
...
Science is only collection of theories, and statements derive in
those theories, and intepretation rules, and confirmation modus
operandi. Only layman and engineers have to hope that their theories
fits enough a reality.
The theories
On 2 September 2010 18:32, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> So, as far as I am true, beliefs coincide with knowledge.
Yes, I can see that this statement essentially sums up exactly what I
was trying to say! Its structure expresses the relation between
formal (belief) and non-formal (knowledge), from the
On 9/2/2010 1:32 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I did read your preceeding message. And what I got out of it is that
if you consistently apply your evaluative criteria, you should
conclude that physicalism, platonism, deism, theism, arithmetical
16 matches
Mail list logo
