Utilitarian2 comments on Excluding the Supernatural - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (124)
I would ask the same question as Nominull and Tiiba: Why is a thing different from a thing like quarks? If we discovered a spirit in a tree that wasn't composed of quarks and leptons, is there a reason we couldn't take that spirit to be a new fundamental that behaves in such-and-such a way, just as a down quark is a fundamental particle that behaves in such-and-such a way?
Eliezer: If, on the other hand, a supernatural hypothesis turns out to be true, then presumably you will also discover that it is not inconceivable.
Right. So apart from Occam's razor, what's the reason for excluding things that aren't quarks and leptons from your set of fundamental particles?