<<This is why any view of reality that is based on probability is subjective/ relative. And, even perhaps meaningless in any ultimate sense. >>
First, I have no idea what you said, as usual. This is the problem with adopting any other philosophy than naturalism; it garbles the reasoning process, since words have no well-defined meanings. Second, you can't draw any conclusions from a position of ignorance. If we don't know, we don't know. We can't say, "We don't know therefore X is true." That's an argument from ignorance. Even if our subjective worlds are different, they are still ***mappable*** from one to the other or else we could not communicate. That indicates a stable underlying reality. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
