On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/28/2014 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The problem is that once you suppress "God", you will make Matter
into a God, and science into pseudo-religious scientism, with his
train of authoritative arguments. why do you think the FPI is still
ignored by most scientists?
To say "I don't believe in God" is quasi-equivalent with saying
"Now we have the answer to the fundamental question", which is just
a crackpot kind of statement.
That's a great deal of attribution of thoughts to me. Have you
taken up mind reading, Bruno? If one forms a theory in which matter
is fundamental then matter=god, and god=matter. What you call it
makes no difference to whether it is a good theory of the world.
And since, as you've noted, physics doesn't try to start with an
axiom defining matter, it is just defined implicitly by the
equations and ostensively,
But ostensive definition cannot work for what is fundamental, if only
by the dream argument.
physics could reach a theory in which matter=computation...and in
fact that's exactly what Tegmark has done. So you are factually
wrong assuming "matter" is some blinding constraint on physics.
Primitive matter is. It is a dogma for many of them. Sometimes it is
even an unconscious dogma: they don't conceive we can be wrong on that
idea. the success of aristotle is related to that.
The reason FPI is "ignored" by most scientists is that most
scientist judge there is more progress to be made elsewhere.
Everett introduced the idea of FPI, but he didn't research it,
because he saw no way to do so. And your own theory essentially
supports that judgement by showing that part of FP experience is
ineffable.
To say "I don't believe in God" is quite clear to all those people
who write dictionaries and has nothing to do with claiming that the
fundamental questions are answered.
This is not my perception. FPI is ignored by exactly those who told me
that physicalism is the only modern way to conceive reality, and those
are known as fundamentalist atheists (even by moderate atheists). But
I don't want to insist on this, nor cite name, etc.
When Mach said, "I don't believe in atoms." did it imply he knew
what was fundamental?
That is a more specific statement on some theories. But God is not a
theory. It is a concept. Those who write dictionaries belong to our
era where theology is still a taboo subject.
Like all atheists you defend the Christian conception of God.
For a logician you make a lot false inferences - or at least
attribute them to others.
Show one. To say that "I don't believe in God, nor in the non
existence of God" can be said by an agnostic. But when said with the
meaning that God has no referent, it means either "I disbelieve in
fairy tales" which is trivial or it means "I believe in the modern
myth of primitive matter, and physicalism, and the mind-body problem
is a false problem" (and if you explain to them the FPI, you get no
answer. In fact those people ignore even the dialog).
Scientists have to be agnostic on both primitive matter (no evidences
exists at all for it) and God, which exists trivially for everyone,
once you take the original definition which is at the base of
fundamental science, as it is the bet that we can do research in that
domain. It is the bet in a fundamental reality and the acknowledgment
we don't know it.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
