John Mikes wrote:
> Tom Caylor wrote:
> > This looks like Tarski's trick to me. It is an act of faith any time
> > we take what we say as truth.
> On 12/24/06, *Brent Meeker* < meekerdb.domain.name.hidden
> <mailto:meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>> wrote:
> "When I take what I say to be true based on evidence it is not a matter
> of faith"
> JM:
> it is based on your faith in your evidence and its truth. A religious
> person accepts as evidence "God said so" - of course it is based on HIS
> faith, and so are physicists evidencing by collapse of wave function,
> .by calculations on the inflation after the BB, and other kind of
> 'scientists' (believing) in the tenets of their (today's) science, just
> as (in Ptolemy-time) on the flatness of the Earth.
>
> Tom Caylor wrote:
> >This is unsupported without an ultimate
> > Person who gives the ultimate source of bringing truth into existence
> > through words.
> BM:
> "This is pure magic mongering - as though some special "ultimate" person
> can bring something into existence by words."
> JM:
> Unless you have 'faith' in that "ultimate person"<G> - I take Brent's
> side here.
> *
> BM:
> Critics of reductionism ignore the contrary process of
> synthesis. Physics does not *just* reduce things to atoms, it also
> shows how things are synthesized from atoms and their relations.
> JM:
> "relations" is a big word (Do you have a good meaning for it?)
Multi-place predicates. Note that some physicists (David Mermin, Carlo Rovelli) propose that we formulate quantum mechanics as "relations without relata".
>IMO it
> includes the impredicative - non computable interrelatedness of the
> totality we cannot include into our limited reductionist models.
Just because our models are limited does not justify the conclusion that there are things that cannot be modelled.
> Nor
> can "physics" consider all of it in a 'synthetic' opposite.
All of what? Are you sure there is a "whole"?
> I consider
> Stathis's words on his "chemistry" as his domain-concept of relations
> between people etc., otherwise I would have argued (on my turf) about
> chemistry's "occurrence" vs our figment how to depict and explain into
> patterns (even drawn into 2D formulation upon the atomic illusions in
> chem. science) the figment we have about certain primitively observed
> phenomena. All in the sense of "physical" edifice-evidence we have
> ""FAITH"" in.
I cant' discern any meaning in that.
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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon Dec 25 2006 - 15:38:29 PST