Dan said:
> Well, that's well worth arguing about. If the transcendental is not the
> origin of morals, what is?
Trial and error, basically, on the levels of species evolution and of
cultural evolution.
(If you take away the transcendental, that's pretty much all that's left.)
(On the other hand, in a year I might feel different about it. I have in
the past. <g>)
> >there's no such thing as a noumenon,
>
> why does every interpretation of QM (even the "realist" ones have something
> that can be identified as the noumenon? If you want, I can go through the
> four major interpretations.
I have the feeling this will mean rehashing some ancient threads to which
I apparently wasn't paying sufficient attention at the time, but please go
ahead. :-)
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
