From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V14 #15911 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 15911 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Nobel-Prize Winning Trigger Erases 78Ibs of Fat ["Metabolism Trigger" Subject: Nobel-Prize Winning Trigger Erases 78Ibs of Fat Nobel-Prize Winning Trigger Erases 78Ibs of Fat http://fungusrelief.pro/gMyjcWiUgYY90ZsMTRDmwrURTQLL9gnV00jvgrolBLjuqwGg8w http://fungusrelief.pro/7JcryhnkhE-3A5zhVtSNEudaVFo4UbNMN80nyUFv4H4Dh5Dnjw 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 #15911 ***********************************************