From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V14 #15910 Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Wednesday, April 16 2025 Volume 14 : Number 15910 Today's Subjects: ----------------- He Gained 79% More Volume By Only Using THIS! ["Health Report" Subject: He Gained 79% More Volume By Only Using THIS! He Gained 79% More Volume By Only Using THIS! http://siriusxm.ru.com/9GXr3HN_GIZwfE17v5kMm7dKGB01zyOAcavZJAmAuozWMtIa http://siriusxm.ru.com/oziJHuR1IcQU1o9C2tkHeaNRw8enulJD2ZHQjeW0Lmsj57J7 ent physics, then physicalism is very likely to be false because it is very likely (by pessimistic meta-induction) that much of current physics is false. If, on the other hand, we define the physical in terms of a future (ideal) or completed physics, then physicalism is hopelessly vague or indeterminate. Physicalist response Some physicalists, like Andre Melnyk, accept the dilemma's first horn: they accept that the current definition of physicalism is very likely false as long it is more plausible than any currently formulated rival proposition, such as dualism. Melnyk maintains that this is the attitude most scientists hold toward scientific theories anyway. For example, a defender of evolutionary theory may well accept that its current formulation is likely to be revised in the future but defend it because they believe current evolutionary theory is more likely than any current rival idea, such as creationism. Thus Melnyk holds that one should define physicalism in relation to current physics and have a similar attitude toward its truth as most scientists have toward the truth of currently accepted scientific theories. Some physicalists defend physicalism via alternative characterizations of phy ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V14 #15910 ***********************************************