On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 04:14:29PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > >Isn't it crazy to reject what there is enormous evidence for and > >accept what there is NO evidence for? > > That is what you do. There are no evidence for any universe, and > indeed, as you assume comp, you could understand that there is no > universe. The notion is close to inconsistent, and explanatively > empty. > Physicists measure numbers, and infer relation among numbers. Then > even cosmological theories usually avoid metaphysical commitment. > This is done by physicalist philosophers, and can make sense, but > then not together with the assumption that the brain functions > mechanically at some level. >
Sorry to be pernicketty, but if you are working in a theory that makes no ontologicical commitment (or metaphysical, which I assume is the same thing), then how does that contradict your reversal result? It is only a theory _about_ phenomena, not about what's ontologically real. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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.
