'te bartender cuts in...' - I believe David indeed has no idea what the
"real point in issue" may be - he would have been addressing it. There is *NO
In those "thought experiments" (euphemism for phantasm to justify points of
non-existence) certain prerequisites are also needed (additional phantasms)
and justification for them, too. Then there are 'conclusions' imaginary and
the consequences of such - built in.
I admire the patience of Bruno replying to all those (circular?
fantasy-related?) posts (I am not relating to your posts) - I lost the
endurance to follow all of them lately. I read a lot of David's posts and
think your expressed "...belie(f)ve your (i.e. David's) thinking is naive
simplistic and commonplace." is wrong.
It is a shame, because you seem to be a well-thinking and well-educated guy
who works with well-crafted logical argumentation.
I cannot raise my voice for/against indeterminacy because of my agnostic
worldview that postulates lots of unknown/unknowable factors influencing
our decisions - together with factors we know of and acknowledge - so
uncertainty may be ignorance-based, not only haphazardous. A
'deterministic' totality, however, is a matter of belief for me -
unjustified as well - because of the partial 'order' we detect in the so
far knowable nature (negating 'random' occurrences that would screw-up any
order, even the limited local ones).
My worldview is my 'faith' - not subject to discussion.
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 1:00 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 David Nyman <da...@davidnyman.com> wrote:
> > John, I hope you will not think me impertinent, but you're expending a
>> great deal of time and energy arguing with an elaborate series of
>> straw men. No doubt this is great fun and highly entertaining, but
>> would you consider the alternative of requesting clarification of the
>> real point at issue? It's painful to see you repeatedly arguing past
> If your thinking were clear and you understood what " the real point at
> issue" was and you knew of a key question I have not answered you would
> have certainly asked it somewhere in the above; but you did not I think
> because you could not, and that fact makes me believe your thinking is
> naive simplistic and commonplace. Prove me wrong.
> John K Clark
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at