Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Galen Strawson's argument for why physical reality is experiential
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="public hermit" data-source="post: 74776249" data-attributes="member: 421854"><p>I think this is a generous proposal on your part. If it were true, it would make Strawson's position seem less like he is saying that the physical actually is mental. But, again, I'd bet he is aware of the very things you point out concerning the mathmatical aspect of physics, and thus the possibility of assuming the physical *is* mathmatical.</p><p></p><p>Strawson is clear in the OP that his starting question is "If, according to physics, concrete stuff = energy, what is the nature of this energy?" One would think, as you say, he would answer it is fundamentally mathmatical. That would be low hanging fruit, so to speak. Physics deals in math, therefore...</p><p></p><p>Instead, he answers that we have two options, either it is experiential or non-experiential. So, as with you, he doesn't seem to assume the math gets us there. He really believes the fundamental nature is mind.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="public hermit, post: 74776249, member: 421854"] I think this is a generous proposal on your part. If it were true, it would make Strawson's position seem less like he is saying that the physical actually is mental. But, again, I'd bet he is aware of the very things you point out concerning the mathmatical aspect of physics, and thus the possibility of assuming the physical *is* mathmatical. Strawson is clear in the OP that his starting question is "If, according to physics, concrete stuff = energy, what is the nature of this energy?" One would think, as you say, he would answer it is fundamentally mathmatical. That would be low hanging fruit, so to speak. Physics deals in math, therefore... Instead, he answers that we have two options, either it is experiential or non-experiential. So, as with you, he doesn't seem to assume the math gets us there. He really believes the fundamental nature is mind. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Galen Strawson's argument for why physical reality is experiential
Top
Bottom