Brent Meeker wrote: > But it's still a model, one based on arithmetic rather than matter, and the > only way to > judge whether it is a good model to see how it > corresponds with "mere appearance"; just > like we test QM, general > relativity, and every other theory. It *might* be the really real > > model - but so might any other model that fits all the data.
Yes, of course, Brent - hence my comments later on in my post. But in fact, comp implies that the normal physics model can't 'fit all the data', if we include (as we must) the 1-person pov itself in 'the data'. And my point is also that a model which is, in this respect particularly, so counter to 'normal science' is especially provocative and deserves much attention. Well, it gets it on this list but unfortunately much of the debate goes round in circles because the concepts are hard to grapple with, let alone master sufficiently to rebut (short of IMHO sterile debates about 'reification'). Hence we don't get very far... hence (please) THE ROADMAP. But I wouldn't want Bruno to feel I was harrassing him... David > David Nyman wrote: > > Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > > >>So you want an explanation in terms of the "underlying physics" - the > >>physics of the really > real reality. And how will you know when you've > >>found it? > > > > > > It seems to me that comp precisely asserts (and can putatively prove) > > such a 'really real reality' from which observable physics emerges. In > > fact, it demonstrates the necessary relativity between (possibly > > nested) 'sandwiches' of Qualitative Reality and Observable Reality. In > > the comp account, this is responsible for the following jaw-dropping > > implications: > > > > 1) QR (1-person pov) is recursively prior to OR (3-person relata), to > > which it stands in the logical relation of a medium to the symbols > > embodied in it. Consequently, of course, OR cannot *cause* QR, although > > it must correlate with it (hence your observations about neural > > correlates etc.). > > But it's still a model, one based on arithmetic rather than matter, and the > only way to judge whether it is a good model to see how it corresponds with > "mere appearance"; just like we test QM, general relativity, and every other > theory. It *might* be the really real model - but so might any other model > that fits all the data. > > Brent Meeker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---