On Wed, Jun 20, 2012  Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:

> Do you [Bruno] stand by that implication, that "matter is primitive" =
> "not explainable from non material relation"?  This implies that: "matter
> is not primitive"  = "explainable from non material relation".

That implies nothing of the sort, in fact it implies the exact opposite. If
it's really primitive then it's the end of a long line of "what is that
made of?" or "why did that happen?" questions. If it's truly primitive then
it's not explainable PERIOD, otherwise the explanation would be the thing
that was primitive, unless of course the explanation itself had a
explanation. Maybe nothing is primitive and it's like a onion with a
infinite number of layers, or maybe not, nobody knows.

> time is not just the number of steps, it is also the transitional flow
> from one step to another.

You don't know that to be true and without instrumentation if time jumped
just a hundred times a second or so you couldn't tell the difference
between that and continuous flow, that's why TV and movies work. And there
are theoretical reasons to suspect that there is no time shorter than the
Plank Time, 10^-44 seconds, a number that can be calculated using only the
gravitational constant, the speed of light, and Plank's constant, which
makes me think they may be the most important physical constants around and
although the laws of physics may be different in different parts of the
multiverse those three numbers may stay the same. Or maybe not, nobody

 > I would really like to understand why it is that John Clark insists on
> this elimination attitude toward the referent of that "sequence of ASCII
> characters". It seems that he does not understand the ramifications of such
> a postulate! IMHO, it makes anything that claims to be produced by his mind
> to be a meaningless "sequence of ASCII characters" as it clearly cannot be
> the result of an act of "his" will. He can have no will

I have said, more than once, that the meaning of "will" is clear and I have
absolutely no problem with it; but I don't have the slightest idea what
"free will" is supposed to mean and neither do you and neither does anybody
else. I know this because whenever anybody tries to give a definition or a
example or even a informal explanation of "free will" it only takes them
about 2 seconds to tie themselves into idiotic self contradictions,
circularity, and other ridiculous logical knots.

  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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to