peterdjones wrote:
> [...] What we can be sure of is that
> 1) we exist
> 2) we are conscious
> 3) there is some sort of external world
> 4) there is some phenomenon of time.

*You* are sure of that and of what it might mean. Please do
not decide for others.

> These are all quite problematical for Mathematical Monism;

As *you* believe and understand them, certainly. *I* do not
see any problem for mathematical monism (I do not need the
upper cases) to make sense.

> [...] Arguments should start with what you can be sure of.

What "we" can be sure of (as well as what it might mean) can
be very different from my viewpoint and from yours.

In order to have a chance to make the point, arguments that
*you* address to *me* should start wtih what *I* can be sure
of and not with what *you* can be sure of. And vice versa

What I can be sure of is probably "weaker" than what you can
be sure of. It is likely to be quite different too. That must
be why it can be compatible with more (or different) ideas.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to