Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roboshark
That's a faulty premise: you assume you know enough about atomic billiard balls to conclude that the interaction of billions of them is not sufficient to define, describe and quantify the person that you think you are. The lack of sufficient knowledge is not sound basis for the rejection or acceptance of an idea. Just because the Sun moves through the sky doesn't mean it orbits the Earth
|
This simply sounds like a rehash of Logical Positivism, as promulgated by the so-called Vienna Circle in the early parts of the 20th century. Karl Popper, despite his self-agrandising crooning, did indeed debunk this entire idea and introduced perhaps the most important philosophical advance in the philosophy of science with his theory of Falsificationism.
So, before we descend into some rather esoteric debates on the nature of truth, proof and first principles, I would suggest we avoid rhetorical statements such as these and proceed based on generally accepted a priori statements.
Mr Mephisto