Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

From: Bruno Marchal <>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:45:13 +0100

Le 10-mars-07, à 18:42, John M a écrit :

> I don't deny the usefulness of science (even if it is reductionist) ...

How could science be reductionist? Science is the art of making
hypotheses enough clear so as to make them doubtable and eventually

No scientist will ever say there is a primitive physical universe or an
ultimate God, or anything like that. All theories are hypothetical,
including "grandmother's one when asserting that the sun will rise
tomorrow. The roots of our confidence in such or such theories are
complex matter.

Don't confuse science with the human approximation of it. Something
quite interesting per se, also, but which develops itself.
Lobian approximations of it are also rich of surprise, about "oneself".

"Science" or better, the scientific attitude, invites us to listen to
what the machine can say and dream of, nowadays. How could such an
invitation be reductionist?

I would say science is modesty. It is what makes faith necessary and

With comp, when science or reason grows polynomially (in a trip from G
to G* for example), then faith "has to" grow super-exponentially.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Sun Mar 11 2007 - 09:45:31 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:13 PST