John, 'te bartender cuts in...' - I believe David indeed has no idea what the "real point in issue" may be - he would have been addressing it. There is *NO *real point. In those "thought experiments" (euphemism for phantasm to justify points of non-existence) certain prerequisites are also needed (additional phantasms) and justification for them, too. Then there are 'conclusions' imaginary and the consequences of such - built in. I admire the patience of Bruno replying to all those (circular? fantasy-related?) posts (I am not relating to your posts) - I lost the endurance to follow all of them lately. I read a lot of David's posts and think your expressed "...belie(f)ve your (i.e. David's) thinking is naive simplistic and commonplace." is wrong. It is a shame, because you seem to be a well-thinking and well-educated guy who works with well-crafted logical argumentation.
I cannot raise my voice for/against indeterminacy because of my agnostic worldview that postulates lots of unknown/unknowable factors influencing our decisions - together with factors we know of and acknowledge - so uncertainty may be ignorance-based, not only haphazardous. A 'deterministic' totality, however, is a matter of belief for me - unjustified as well - because of the partial 'order' we detect in the so far knowable nature (negating 'random' occurrences that would screw-up any order, even the limited local ones). My worldview is my 'faith' - not subject to discussion. Regards John Mikes On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 1:00 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 David Nyman <da...@davidnyman.com> wrote: > > > John, I hope you will not think me impertinent, but you're expending a >> great deal of time and energy arguing with an elaborate series of >> straw men. No doubt this is great fun and highly entertaining, but >> would you consider the alternative of requesting clarification of the >> real point at issue? It's painful to see you repeatedly arguing past >> it. >> > > If your thinking were clear and you understood what " the real point at > issue" was and you knew of a key question I have not answered you would > have certainly asked it somewhere in the above; but you did not I think > because you could not, and that fact makes me believe your thinking is > naive simplistic and commonplace. Prove me wrong. > > John K Clark > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
