-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Thu, 11 May 2000, Brent Meeker wrote: > This seems like a very extravagant claim. In what sense does an idea exist if > no one has it. And what is an "idea" anyway - a thought, something that can be > expressed by a declarative sentence. If the latter, then does the idea > expressed by, "This is not an idea" exist? If there is to be a theory of
I think This is not an idea" can exist and can exist as as idea (even under your clause above). > everything - including ideas - then it seems it would have to be something like > Russell's neutral monism; in which the basic "stuff" of our lives are sets of > monads some of which are related so as to represent a physical external world > (these we mostly call perceptions) and another related set which constitue an > internal mental life (which we call our thoughts). The fact that these two > sets are also related to each other in a certain order constitues the passage > of time (both physical and psychological) and together they constitute a > person who we say 'experiences things in time.' A TOE would presumably predict, > at least probabilistically, these monads and their relations. Is it JH who doesn't believe in time? I am quite satisfied with believe that both (real) physical and (real) mental worlds can exist and am I am quite content with believing that they are, in fact, one and the same. The numbers that are given to try to prove the multi-verse idea seems silly to me -- because if people were to accept that, then any number of other explanations would also be plausable. So, if we all have our own ideas of what everything is -- how do we proceed with discussions on this list? Scott -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBORvTPVpGPE+AF6qBAQGwuAQAvOsJv6zc+n1U+Ac3I95GajXWKRT0JzO5 UPRvWPyyKJvldpJm3JfhX0mgMoNriFLJKfnBsy7xUS+UjitG0CjFpEKtdJca+Yut MFsRvKt25+CUPaiivfhlfah4wXyGii3B3kwwTS/vIH4KoF5QS1mGfoOca/73e/0w 1jL96MUVMks= =AuoN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
