On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The processes in the
spiritual realm would still either be determined or random,
Would it? Or is that just an assumption? Is it necessary that there be laws
that determine everything not random by antecedent states?
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don' believe in this spirit theory anyway; I was just trying to show it
was a testable theory.
I have never understood why things are supposed to become less
self-contradictory in the spirit world than in our world or how spirit
In his book An Essay on Metaphysics in Part IIIc Causation, Collingwood
has considered what could mean that every event must have a cause. This
could be interesting for a discussion on free will, as Collingwood shows
that causation presupposes free will. In other words, if free will is to
be
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
Note that you will find Kurt Goedel among the authors of ontological
arguments on the page above.
Somebody mentioned the exact same thing a few months ago and this is what I
had to say about it:
That was in Godel's later years when
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
For me personally, it is a puzzle why modern physics still needs that
every event has a cause.
I don't know what you're talking about. Modern physics does not say every
event has a cause, in fact it says the exact
On 17 Jun 2012, at 16:54, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don' believe in this spirit theory anyway; I was just trying to
show it was a testable theory.
I have never understood why things are supposed to become less self-
contradictory in
On 17 Jun 2012, at 17:09, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
Note that you will find Kurt Goedel among the authors of
ontological arguments on the page above.
Somebody mentioned the exact same thing a few months ago and this is
what I had to
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
We can perhaps agree that consciousness-here-and-now is the only truth
we know which seems undoubtable, so it might be more easy to explain the
illusion of matter to consciousness than the illusion of consciousness to a
piece
On 17.06.2012 17:15 John Clark said the following:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
For me personally, it is a puzzle why modern physics still needs
that every event has a cause.
I don't know what you're talking about. Modern physics does not say
every
On 6/17/2012 7:54 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don' believe in this spirit theory anyway; I was just trying to show it
was a
testable theory.
I have never understood why things are supposed to become
On 6/17/2012 8:03 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Collingwood has shown that what we find nowadays as self-evident has started with Kant
only (just a bit more than 200 years ago).
p. 328 (a) That every event has a cause,
(b) That the cause of an event is a previous event,
(c) That (a) and (b) are
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:42:08PM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
By the way, I believe that in Grand Design, Hawkins is talking about
cause and effect.
5 points on Baez's crackpot index for quoting Hawking's mispelt name:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html (item 8).
(Couldn't
12 matches
Mail list logo
