On 13 Feb 2014, at 04:08, meekerdb wrote:
<snip>
That doesn't mean it can explain ghosts, leprechauns, gods and
other things *not* observed.
Why not "consciousness" and other things that we do not see, but
at least believe in?
There's a difference between being able to explain anything and
explaining everything.
That's my point.
Bruno
Then it's not well taken since I used the word "anything"
originally and your complaint implies I wrote "everything".
All right. I interpreted "anything" by "anything worth to be
explained".
If not, for a logician, that which can explain anything becomes an
inconsistent theory, or the set of sentences true in a cul-de-sac
world.
If I reported that there was a flying pig, wouldn't comp just
explain, "That's the way arithmetic looks from inside."?
Why? No. Not at all.
You must (using G & Co.) looks at the way arithmetic looks from
inside, and if you find the flying pig, then yes, you can say that
comp explains the flying pig, but if you see a white rabbit instead
(in the arithmetic), you can say that comp does not explain the flying
pig, and might be false in case you don't find the white rabbit in
nature.
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.
