Hi John,

On 11 Mar 2012, at 20:36, John Mikes wrote:

John,
'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 real point. 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.

Can't agree more.

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.


Best,

Bruno







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
it.

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to