David Nyman wrote:
> 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'.
Suppose that theory X predicts there are some things we'll never figure out. And there are some things we haven't figured out. That's at best extremely weak support for theory X.
>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.
Yes, I find it interesting and I'm willing to spend time trying to understand it - but being contrary to empiricism doesn't count in it's favor in my view.
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 Sat Oct 21 2006 - 01:12:06 PDT