In article .com,
wrote:

I would ask Louis to contemplate Alfred North Whitehead's description
of the nineteenth century paradigm:

"The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries accepted as their natural
philosophy a certain circle of concepts which were as rigid and
definite as those of the philosophy of the middle ages, and were
accepted with as little critical research. I will call this natural
philosophy 'materialism.' Not only were men of science materialists,
but also adherents of all schools of philosophy. The idealists only
differed from the philosophic materialists on question of the alignment
of nature in reference to mind. But no one had any doubt that the
philosophy of nature considered in itself was of the type which I have
called materialism. It is the philosophy which I have already examined
in my two lectures of this course preceding the present one. It can be
summarised as the belief that nature is an aggregate of material and
that this material exists in some sense at each successive member of a
one-dimensional series of extensionless instants of time. Furthermore
the mutual relations of the material entities at each instant formed
these entities into a spatial configuration in an unbounded space. It
would seem that space---on this theory-would be as instantaneous as the
instants, and that some explanation is required of the relations
between the successive instantaneous spaces. The materialistic theory
is however silent on this point; and the succession of instantaneous
spaces is tacitly combined into one persistent space. This theory is a
purely intellectual rendering of experience which has had the luck to
get itself formulated at the dawn of scientific thought. It has
dominated the language and the imagination of science since science
flourished in Alexandria, with the result that it is now hardly
possible to speak without appearing to assume its immediate
obviousness. " The Concept of Nature 1920.

It's obvious that Whitehead's materialists were all a bunch of
crackpots and dishonest jackasses. Dishonesty of thought is the mother
of stupidity. Would you believe that John Baez (that boastful,
self-admiring, grown-up nerd who thinks that science is about showing
how smart you are at solving little puzzles) subscribes to the same
crap? Baez claims that reality consists of an infinite number
of"nows".

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/1999-07/msg0016990.html

Baez, of course, declines to explain how one is able to move from one
now to the next, given that motion is impossible in spacetime. Heck,
there is not even a mechanism in GR's spacetime to determine which now
is the actual now.

There are still plenty of materialists but they do not include your
list of 'cranks'.

Do you mean that they did not make it on my list? Of course, they
didn't. They're like ****ing bugs in a ****ing swamp. I am not an
exterminator.

Louis Savain

The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/...eliability.htm