On 10/31/2024 3:07 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


On Thursday, October 31, 2024 at 1:44:15 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

    On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 1:37 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]>
    wrote:

        > /Wheeler's answer explains nothing,/


    *I think it explains a great deal,especially considering the fact
    that it's only 13 words long. *


*Wheeler is just translating EFE, Einstein's Field Equation, into words. I have no objection if you like it, but IMO it adds nothing, explains nothing beyond what the equation states. AG *

    *
    *

        *> */just repeating what EFE says/*, *


    *Maybe, maybe not.Google says EFE is aSpanish news agency, but I
    don't know if that's what you meant. And by the way, IHA.*
    *
    *
    />There could be an unlimited sequence of "why's", /
    *
    *
    *Yes there could be.*
    *
    *

        /> or the sequence might terminate in profound knowledge, but
        likely NOT in an event without a cause, /


    *That doesn't make any sense.If the sequence terminates inX then
    wouldn't you want to know _WHY_ it terminates in X ? If X is"/NOT
    in an event without a cause/"then you'd want to know what sort of
    thing DID cause X, and how and why it did so; therefore the
    sequence of "why" questions does _NOT_ terminate with X.*


*Since we're nowhere near what we're speculating about, this train of thought is useless. However, I affirm that an irreducible event is unintelligible to human understanding. Without some rule for the emergence of an event, aka a cause, there is no way to understand it. *
*A rule would just be Einstein's equations plus a few rules for applying them.  A cause would be something different and prior in time.  Given your assertions there is either always going to be an unintelligible assertion at the foundation of one's understanding OR there's going to be a circular relation of concepts that you may follow around until you reach one that you understand.  I think of this as a virtuous circle of explantion, something like this:



Brent



*
*Some people think probability can be conceived of as a cause. I disagree with this conclusion. AG*

    *
    *
    *John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis
    <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>*

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ca559d3f-6a6e-4cb7-b4c2-2e07a098a1b9n%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ca559d3f-6a6e-4cb7-b4c2-2e07a098a1b9n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8b9a1e1f-c8a0-4427-a42b-0bbc749c9043%40gmail.com.

Reply via email to