On 3/29/2021 5:17 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
Rovelli is a loop quantum gravitation maven. This is a very ontological physics, and explains in part Rovelli's stance. The though has occurred to me that maybe LQG states are the kernel of some sort of target map. Either than or they are epistemic/ontologically uncertain and in an epistemic setting target map to zero.

LC

On Monday, March 29, 2021 at 2:05:33 PM UTC-5 use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:

    I have read Rovelli's paper. I am disappointed. What Rovelli
    suggest is eliminativism. Red (a) (what I see) does not exist but
    red (b) (electromagnetic wave peaking near 564–580 nm) exists.


That is not at all what Rovelli says.  You still see red, but you have learned that it is due to 564-580nm photons exciting neurons in your eye (b) and not rays reaching out from your eyes to contact redness (a).  Rovelli is replacing one conceptualization with another...and telling us we should not become overly attached to a conceptualization.  I'm reminded of Lemaitre advising the Pope to not tie faith in the creation to the Big Bang.


    Rovelli should have read first:

    Donald D. Hoffman. The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the
    Truth from Our Eyes, 2019.


I don't think Rovelli would have any argument with it.  He certainly doesn't hold that the manifest world, which evolution has provided, is the real world.  Physics is all about using instruments and experiments and theories to find a more comprehensive and consistent concept of the world that produces the manifest world.

Brent


    Evgenii

    Brent schrieb am Sonntag, 28. März 2021 um 00:35:27 UTC+1:




        -------- Forwarded Message --------


        *The Old Fisherman's Mistake*

        ROVELLI, Carlo (2021)

        Abstract

        A number of thorny issues such as the nature of time, free
        will, the clash of the manifest and scientific images, the
        possibility of a naturalistic foundation of morality, and
        perhaps even the possibility of accounting for consciousness
        in naturalistic terms, seem to me to be plagued by the
        conceptual confusion nourished by a single fallacy: the old
        fisherman's mistake.

        http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18837/1/Pescatore.pdf
        <http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18837/1/Pescatore.pdf>


        Rovelli has it exactly right.

        Brent

--
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 <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/72677d11-ca95-4653-a487-8b0f8cebe8e1n%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/72677d11-ca95-4653-a487-8b0f8cebe8e1n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/faff7bf0-cb4f-fa20-ff9d-9852ff37b51f%40verizon.net.

Reply via email to