Laws of course only exist in thought (except for pure Platonists,
who believe that forms or ideas are more real than the actualities
they refer to or describe). What exists outside of thought are the
things in motion that the "laws" describe. "E=Mc2" is a thought,
though it is a thought through wh
In a message dated 9/6/00 8:54:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< I guess if you follow Berkeley chairs
and tables are ideas so they are certainly like them if they are like ideas!
Are you talking about the question whether some "entities" in theoretical
physics actual
>> How are they like either of these or are you just being funny?
The joy of greeting a loved one depends upon there being loved ones but I
don't see how laws of physics depend upon this; also, they apply
whether we
see something beautiful etc. or not. I must confess that I am not
sure what
In a message dated 9/6/00 9:07:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< Laws of course only exist in thought (except for pure Platonists,
who believe that forms or ideas are more real than the actualities
they refer to or describe). What exists outside of thought are the
thin
various persuasions dealt with this issue. Quine seems most radical and
relativistic on issues of what there is. Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 10:38 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:1370
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> laws state actual natural necessities
> in this owrld such that, in virtue of the causal structure of something,
> something else must occur in certain given circumstances. It's a complex
> topic.
I don't think you and I are in any real disagreement on this. "Laws *
In a message dated 9/7/00 12:04:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< I don't think you and I are in any real disagreement on this. "Laws
*state*."
"e=mc2" *states* something about light, but were minds not around to
make the statement light would do just fine by itself. >
