Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is beliefevil?

From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 07/30/04 

Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 08:18:21 -0000

 Patrick Reany:
>dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
>> Patrick Reany:

>> >1) When you say "obviously there exists some redundancy somewhere" are
>> >you proclaiming a Truth of existence or merely a personal belief.
>>
>> I'm proclaiming a ``Truth'' (to use your terminology). The fact that
>> I can compress a file is proof. My files obviously inhabit the universe.
>
>Sure, the same way that the images of ducks inhabit clouds.
 
  OK. I'll note that you're position is that this universe does
not contain its contents, much less any people who think about it.

>> If you were looking for something less obvious, the fact that we can't
>> discover any phenomena that don't fit two, very short theories, means
>> there's a whole lot of redundancy. That reduces the universe to the
>> universe itself minus the redundancy we've already established and
>> quantified. Unless you believe it's turtles all the way down, that
>> leaves a finite amount of the universe left to quantify.
>
>So, what you're claiming is the metaphysical claim that something

  No, I claim that you seem unable to figure out if you're a solipsist
leaving you with the dilemna of which came first, you or the universe.
 
>called "redundancy" exists in the universe, and that this existence is
>"obvious."

  Are you really that stupid or kooky?
 
>And you know this to be True because of the economy of human physical laws?

  I'm sorry patrick, but your arguments are really to stupid to be worth
a serious answer. I'd be dead before I ever got to anything worth
discussing.

>> I would certainly hope someone who designs airplanes has things
>> pinned down better than that. Curve fitting is a theory that works.
>
>Why do you call it a "theory" rather than a "technique"?
 
  Because your criteria for a theory is one that works. It's even
guaranteed to work by construction. What's the problem? I'm not
going to consider it a theory, but my criteria differ from yours.

[...]
>> I'm sorry, but so long as you cannot see past the superficial
>> implementation of a particular law of physics as an equation like
>> F = q^2/r^2 as the law itself, there's not much I can say.
>
>I distinguish between an appearant rule that guides the behavior of
>the natural realm, which I call a "law of nature,"

  No, you mentally masturbate about idiotic fantasies like whether
or not you're part of the universe so you can question whether or not
writing a letter in a language containing 50% redundancy counts as
a redundancy in whatever universe you are discussing.

[...]
>I do not know where the laws of nature "exist." I'm not willing to
>commit to a claim that they exist "in the universe" itself.

 I don't really care. I'm just grateful you aren't in a position to
set up a science curriculum on a large scale.

[...]

>The universe is NOT a thinking being capable of logical thought nor is
 
  To use one of your own collection of knee-jerk slogans, how do you
know? Define ``NOT'' as it applies to the universe. Define ``being''.
Define ``universe''. Define self-imposed stupidity.
 
>it an argument or a deductive system, so it cannot be "logical."

  Sure it is, unless you think humans were beamed here from another
universe because this one is fundamentally incapable of supporting
process that would result in the ability to think.

>Logic is not a possible predicate of the term "universe."

  Only in the region of space in the immediate vicinity of your
keyboard.

Relevant Pages