On 12/2/2013 1:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Dec 2013, at 05:37, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/1/2013 12:12 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
but there is no known proof (or even an argument offered by materialists)
that
matter cannot be explained in terms of something simpler.
Of course not. That would the point the it's fundamental.
The point of Jason if I may, is that there is no way to explain numbers without
assuming them... but there are ways to explain matter without assuming it.
I'm not convinced of either of those points. And as I noted "to be explained" does
entail that something cannot be fundmental, only that it might not be.
OK, but then we use Occam razor. Thermodynamic cannot disprove the existence of
invisible horse.
Of course I meant to write, "And as I noted "to be explained" does NOT entail that
something cannot be fundamental".
But I don't think it's so simple as applying Occam's razor. In my example "red" is an
experience that from the perspective of conscious thoughts may have no explanation, i.e.
is fundamental. But from the perspective of biology has an explanation in terms of physics
and chemistry. From an evolutionary perspective it has an explanation in terms of
survival advantage. So Occam's razor cuts different ways depending on the perspective.
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
