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

So, if we all have our own ideas of what everything is -- how
do we proceed with discussions on this list?


Version: 2.6.2


Reply via email to