Posts
Comments
Wow! Ban short selling for a few days and watch the logical fallicies fly!
"Irreducible Mind" by Kelly and Kelly et.al. is an excellent book in that it presents evidence and makes a case very well. How well is for each reader to determine, of course. Psi is not something that could be seen, but it could be experienced. It is always interesting to discuss what people believe in that nobody has ever seen, for example-- Abiogenesis (biology), dark matter (big bang), being surrounded by a googol of unseen beings (MWI)...
You may be making this more complex than needed. Aristotle had a basic premise that the universe has purpose. His reasoning is good given that premise ("future to past cause" eg.) You seem to have the basic premise that the universe is purposeless. The disageement is with the premise. Which premise one subscribes to is based in belief and is more basic than the logic we place on top of it (since all reasoning and observation flow from the premise)
Regarding reductionism and quarks-- Recently physicists have become more interested in 'complexity'. From Physics World survey Dec. 1999-
"Reductionism has failed in a grandiose manner," Itamar Procaccia Giorgio Margaritondo, (the challenge for physics is) "... to develop a general theory of complex systems, in particular of living systems, without relying on the 'reductionist' approach, which is based on the illusion that complex systems can be explained based on an understanding of their more elementary components."
I mention this because sometimes people think that the reductionist appproach is argued on philosophic grounds only.
Before accepting this view of probability and the underlying assumptions about the nature of reality one should look at the experimental evidence. Try Groeblacher, Paterek, et al arXiv.0704.2529 (Aug 6 2007) These experiments test various assumptions regarding non=local realism and conclude= "...giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned"
"Why do I think I have free will?" "Because I do," is a perfectly good answer (assuming free will). Trying to trace that back to anything is question begging. "Why do I think I need to deny my free will?" Wouldn't I need to ask that question to be sure that my original answer isn't based on bias?