Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Le 13-mars-07, à 05:03, Brent Meeker a écrit :
>
>> But there is no reason to believe there is any "root" cause that is
>> deeper than variation with natural selection. You have not presented
>> any argument for the existence of this "ultimate" or "root". You
>> merely refer to "closed science" as though that proved something - but
>> it begs the question. You have to show there is something outside
>> science in order to know that it is "closed"; not just that there is
>> something science has not explained, there's lots of that, but
>> something that science cannot, in-principle explain.
>
>
> Assuming comp, we can know that science will never been able to explain
> where natural numbers come from. That's an insoluble mystery.
> It makes science open. Forever.
I think that depends on what you count as explanation. There are certainly possible evolutionary explanations for why humans invented counting of say sheep instead of looking at each sheep as a unique thing.
>
> But then comp *can* explain (but does not yet provide more than an
> embryo of explanation, yet already confirmed) where waves and particles
> come from, and also, unlike physics, why waves and particles can hurt
> (cf G/G*).
But can comp explain why there is einselection of large objects and the world is approximately classical.
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 Thu Mar 15 2007 - 14:40:01 PDT