Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Le 13-mars-07, à 05:03, Brent Meeker a écrit : > >> But there is no reason to believe there is any "root" cause that is >> deeper than variation with natural selection. You have not presented >> any argument for the existence of this "ultimate" or "root". You >> merely refer to "closed science" as though that proved something - but >> it begs the question. You have to show there is something outside >> science in order to know that it is "closed"; not just that there is >> something science has not explained, there's lots of that, but >> something that science cannot, in-principle explain. > > > Assuming comp, we can know that science will never been able to explain > where natural numbers come from. That's an insoluble mystery. > It makes science open. Forever.
I think that depends on what you count as explanation. There are certainly possible evolutionary explanations for why humans invented counting of say sheep instead of looking at each sheep as a unique thing. > > But then comp *can* explain (but does not yet provide more than an > embryo of explanation, yet already confirmed) where waves and particles > come from, and also, unlike physics, why waves and particles can hurt > (cf G/G*). But can comp explain why there is einselection of large objects and the world is approximately classical. 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
