Brent Meeker wrote:
> But it's still a model, one based on arithmetic rather than matter, and the only way to > judge whether it is a good model to see how it corresponds with "mere appearance"; just > like we test QM, general relativity, and every other theory. It *might* be the really real > model - but so might any other model that fits all the data.
Yes, of course, Brent - hence my comments later on in my post. But in
fact, comp implies that the normal physics model can't 'fit all the
data', if we include (as we must) the 1-person pov itself in 'the
data'. And my point is also that a model which is, in this respect
particularly, so counter to 'normal science' is especially provocative
and deserves much attention. Well, it gets it on this list but
unfortunately much of the debate goes round in circles because the
concepts are hard to grapple with, let alone master sufficiently to
rebut (short of IMHO sterile debates about 'reification'). Hence we
don't get very far... hence (please) THE ROADMAP. But I wouldn't want
Bruno to feel I was harrassing him...
David
> David Nyman wrote:
> > Brent Meeker wrote:
> >
> >
> >>So you want an explanation in terms of the "underlying physics" - the physics of the really > real reality. And how will you know when you've found it?
> >
> >
> > It seems to me that comp precisely asserts (and can putatively prove)
> > such a 'really real reality' from which observable physics emerges. In
> > fact, it demonstrates the necessary relativity between (possibly
> > nested) 'sandwiches' of Qualitative Reality and Observable Reality. In
> > the comp account, this is responsible for the following jaw-dropping
> > implications:
> >
> > 1) QR (1-person pov) is recursively prior to OR (3-person relata), to
> > which it stands in the logical relation of a medium to the symbols
> > embodied in it. Consequently, of course, OR cannot *cause* QR, although
> > it must correlate with it (hence your observations about neural
> > correlates etc.).
>
> But it's still a model, one based on arithmetic rather than matter, and the only way to judge whether it is a good model to see how it corresponds with "mere appearance"; just like we test QM, general relativity, and every other theory. It *might* be the really real model - but so might any other model that fits all the data.
>
> Brent Meeker
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Fri Oct 20 2006 - 20:13:07 PDT