On 05 Feb 2014, at 00:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/4/2014 3:25 PM, LizR wrote:
..
Well, we don't know if anything is really real. I wasn't intending
to discuss metaphysics on this thread; if you want to do that, maybe
you could start another one. All I'm arguing is that SR (and to some
extent NM) imply a block universe as the simplest explanatory
framework (via the usual application of Occam), plus throw in a few
points about the circularity of competing explanations. If that's
wrong then I will go out into the garden and eat worms, but I don't
think that anything you're saying actual conflicts with that.... as
far as I can tell. But then I'm not sure what point you're trying to
make, unless you're just to take apart everything I say in order to
make me look and feel stupid (which, you know, I can do quite well
myself).
My apologies. That was not my intent at all and you are obviously a
very smart person. But I think we are talking metaphysics - at
least Bruno is. His theory is pretty 'meta' relative to physics.
OK.
In monist theories, we have to handle the metalevel at the base level.
Everett do meta-physics, by embedding the physicists in the physical
domain: physicists are assumed to obey the quantum physical laws. I do
this by embedding the mathematician in math, but of course that is
what Gödel did, by the arithmetization of meta-arithmetic.
Zoologist can do that because it is general agreed that zoologist are
animals. We can imagine a zoologist studying the rate or
reproductivity of zoologists!
Botanist cannot do that, because it is generally agreed that botanists
are not plants.
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 [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.
