----- Original Message -----
From: Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: 13 May 2000 19:42
Subject: Re: this very moment
> On 13-May-00, Alastair Malcolm wrote:
>
> >> In any case our reason for supposing the world to be law like is
already
> >> because we believe in induction; not the other way around. Hence in
using
> > what
> >> we know of science and life, which is all based on induction, in step 4
we
> > already introduce circularity into the argument. But maybe not vicious
> > circularity
> >> - that's what makes it interesting.
> >
> > I am afraid I fail to see any relevant circularity here, vicious or
> > otherwise. Note that the particular argument in my post takes the AUH
> > (plenitude) as a premise, so there cannot be circularity at that point.
> > Perhaps you might like to spell out exactly where you think the
circularity
> > arises, and then I could comment further.
> >
> The circularity I referred to arises from my presumption that you intended
to
> explain the reliability of induction from the plentitude; and at the same
time to use the fact that we observe induction to be reliable as supporting
the existence of the
> plentitude.
Straw man. The purpose of my argument was to refute Leslie's dismissal of
AUH's on induction failure grounds, not to provide direct evidence for
AUH's. (Though obviously, as for any hypothesis, consistency with the
evidence may in certain circumstances be a factor in providing support for
that hypothesis.)
> As I said, I'm not sure it's vicious circularity (in which you
> assumed that which was to be proved); rather it is of the form A implies
B, and
> B, therefore (probably) A. I would like to see some discussion of what
else
> implies B - and also some definition of what B is. It seems that most of
the
> discussion on this forum consists of assuming a
plentitude/multi-verse/TOE,
> assuming it to conform to some general ideas
> simplicity/generality/computatbility and then showing that this explains
or
> makes probable some apparent features of the world
> fine-tuned-constants/induction/collapse-of-the-wave-function. This is
> interesting but I would like to see some consideration of alternative
> explanations of these features. Why is the plentitude/multi-verse or
whatever
> preferred?
For my reasons for preferring AUH's please see my web pages starting at
http://www.physica.freeserve.co.uk/p101.htm
Alastair
Received on Sun May 14 2000 - 04:44:03 PDT