On 29 Oct 2012, at 18:58, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
>> We know that as well as we know anything about physics
> This is not valid.
NOT A VALID POINT?!
Indeed.
> A priori we can be dreaming in some world based on a different
physics. Or, as with comp we might belong only to sophisticated
computations,
Are you seriously suggesting that we trash our physics textbooks and
it doesn't bother you if one of your statements does not correspond
to physical experiments??
We don't have to trash any textbook on physics. Only the Aristotelian
theology which is implicitly or explicitly presupposed when discussing
the interpretation of the physical facts and theories.
2) the Platonist one, in which the physical reality is the border,
or the shadow of a vaster invisible reality.
If it's in shadow then it can't be seen so there is nothing to be
gained by talking about it.
Atoms, quark, mathematical structure, parallel universes,
causality, .... there are many things that we can't see, and most of
the seeing we do is already interpreted from conscious or unconscious
pre-theoretical analysis, some of them being almost as older than our
brains.
I think your point are not relevant, and that you would understand
this by yourself if you took the time to study the reasoning I have
proposed to you.
>> we were talking about the theoretical feasibility of making a
prediction and making a forecast of yesterday's weather is not of
much use.
> No. We were talking on something else.
I was talking about it,
That was a non relevant digression.
I don't know what you were talking about.
So you were not answering the question in my post, which can be sum
up: are you OK with step 3, and what about step 4? You are the one
pretending seeing a problem, and as many notice, you just keep not
answering the question. You did understand well the 1-3 distinction,
so it is utterly not understandable why you remain stuck on this.
I can ask you another question: how do you predict what you will
subjectively see, when doing an experience of physics (my question
does not depend on which one)? Do you think that the answer will
depend, or not, of the presence of a universal dovetailer in the
physical universe?
Bruno
John K Clark
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
