Le 26-juil.-05, à 02:17, Lee Corbin a écrit :
> Look, it's VERY simple: take as a first baby-step the notion
> that the 19th century idea of a cosmos is basically true, and
> then add just the Big Bang. What we then have is a universe
> that operates under physical laws. So far---you'll readily
> agree---this is *very* simple conceptually.
>
> Next, look at this picture after 14.7 billion years. Guess
> what has evolved? Finally, there is intelligence and there
> are entities who can *perceive* all this grandeur.
>
> So, don't forget which came first. Not people. Not perceptions.
> Not ideas. Not dich an sich. Not 1st person. Not 3rd person.
> NOT ANY OF THIS NONSENSE. Keep to the basics and we *perhaps*
> will have a chance to understand what is going on.
But both the quantum facts, and then just the comp hyp are incompatible
with that type of naive realism.
You are reifying Nature, like those who confuses Aristotle's
methodology and its metaphysical questions.
It seems to me you are confusing the map and the territory, like you
ask us not to do in your other recent posts. I'm confuse about what you
really think (about fundamental matters).
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Tue Jul 26 2005 - 07:18:22 PDT