On May 3, 10:24 pm, n...@webtv.net (The Averdein Building) wrote:
>
>
> >What makes an infinite regress 'insane'? What makes
> > a regress 'infinite'?
>
> So you're not a fan of parsimony? To each his own.
>
As the man said, things should be as simple as possible - but not
simpler.
>
> >Why roll over and die with mystical 'miracle
> > regularities', when you have the alternative of
> > explanation?
>
> Mysticism again? At least the source of this has been revealed. The
> "occult" and scientific realism have two things in common from the
> standpoint that they "can" both concern entities not visible in routine
> perception being an explanation for events. By "miracle regularities" I
> did not mean either, but rather lawful-like events of experience that
> are foundational (simply happen, "float on their own") without hidden
> causes. That is, no further endless(?) substrates, whether natural or
> supernatural, from which they or their appearances emerged.
>
But what is an example of such a simple happening? I know that there
were some in the sixties, but it took an effort of will to believe
that they weren't as organised as any table tapping at a seance.
>
> If any proposed explanatory postulations about empricial / measurable
> regularities were proposed that espoused theoretical entities or
> conditions (like higher dimensions, parallel universes, superstrings,
> etc) these would not be taken to be literally real, but only
> descriptive, useful or pragmatic (if the latter panned-out). There are
> multiple metaphysical interpretations of quantum physics --a
> circumstance almost reminiscent of the point that Kant tried to make
> with his antinomies; so apart from the question of whether any of them
> is useful, an antirealist or nonrealist stance is applicable.
>
True, there are plenty of them, and, though I think they can be fun
(considering the implications of multiple universes is certainly fun -
one implication is that we all live forever, though, of course, not in
all universes) they aren't, as you say, worth taking seriously as
'real'.
>
> >You have, I think, missed the point of my
> > first posting.
>
> You make references to mysticism and feel that I (ONLY) could have
> missed what a post concerned???!!! But I'll grant this is understandable
> from your POV since I may be one of the few people on the planet who'd
> use "miracle" or "miraculous" with the intention that Strawson sometimes
> does. So apologies on my part if this truly isn't the tired, old tactic
> of misrepresentation that you're engaging in.
>
I'm not sure why you suspect me of misrepresentation, though I see
that you say it is a tired old tactic, so, maybe, you see it lurking
by some form of projection.

I think, though, that I've represented a pretty simple,
straightforward point and haven't seen a counter to it. I've no
conscious knowledge of any intention to mislead anybody or to
misrepresent anything as something else.