Has the physicalist argument been extremely weakened?
| Doobsian Exhilarant Boiling Water Business Firm | 02/11/26 | | dark hateful weed whacker goyim | 02/11/26 | | olive bearded pit | 02/11/26 | | dark hateful weed whacker goyim | 02/11/26 | | olive bearded pit | 02/11/26 | | Boyish Personal Credit Line | 02/11/26 | | medicated mint nowag point | 02/11/26 | | olive bearded pit | 02/11/26 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 11th, 2026 9:45 PM Author: olive bearded pit
naive physicalism has been done here for a while. it is clearly too narrow and fails to accommodate information, observer dependence and emergent structural complexity. but there is nothing wrong with non-reductionist types of physicalism if they admit that things like quantum fields and informational constraints can still be "physical".
if you think there is an extra-physical layer or non-physical ontological substance thats just retarded. every time something like that has been proposed in the past it always turned out to be a placeholder for extra complexity that hadn't been described yet
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833893&forum_id=2#49664590) |
|
|