From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Fri Apr 18 2003 - 17:20:34 EDT
John Burgeson wrote:
>
> Replying to Howard:
>
> >>Here's my preferred meaning: MN is not a statement about the character of
> >>reality, but a statement about the way science is currently done.>>
>
> Agreed. If it WERE a statement about the reality of nature, it would be
> methodological atheism."
If I may butt in here, it seems to me that the claim that MN is successful does
have limited implications for the character of reality. It suggests that the physical
world has no "gaps" in the sense that the term is used when referring to a "God of the
Gaps." It does not require that the physical world exhaust reality. I,e., it implies
that the world has no "horizontal gaps" but not necessarily that it is "vertically"
complete,
Of course whether or not the world does have no "horizontal gaps" -
theologically with reference to miracles and scientifically with reference to Goedel's
theorem - can be debated. (& these two concerns might converge.) Since I have
sometimes spoken of Goedel's theorem in this context, I was interested to see (New
Scientist, 5 April '03, pp.34-35) that Hawking has come to think that a TOE isn't
possible, partly for Goedelian reasons.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Apr 18 2003 - 17:20:50 EDT