On 6/21/2012 11:41 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net <mailto: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.

Hi John,

Nice to talk with you again! ;-) It is quite possible that I got it exactly backward, that would be a symptom of my dyslexia. ;-)


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.

Each and every one of these possibilities are included in the wide variety of mereologies <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/> that I have tried to ask Bruno about. I would really like to get an exact definition what Bruno defines as "primitive". I have a preference for the "nothing is truly primitive" idea as this is what is considered in the non-well founded sets and related logics that Jon Barwise et al have written about and is assumed in Vaughan Pratt's rehabilitation of Dualism. I realize that this is a hard thing to get people to think about, but given the fact that the current assumptions and theories are not solving the problems, why not consider reasonable alternatives?



    > 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.

I am talking/writing about the transition itself, not the fineness of it. Whether is is smooth or discrete, I think that we agree that transitions are occurring! So my point remains conta Bruno, we cannot think of time as just a ordered collection of entities.


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 knows.

I would really like to understand the reasoning that lead to that misconception. Just because we can get a from a concatenation of "physical constants" does not make it a physical constant. I have reasons to suspect that the gravitational constant is not actually a constant but that is not my story to tell. Time, as we are considering here, is a measure of duration of interaction. If there is not a means to define the standard of that measure then it follows that "time" does not exist in that sense. On the other hand, the existence of the transitioning itself is not dependent on the existence of a measure.



     > 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

The word "Free" means that it is not forced or coerced. It is a legal type term, IMHO. I will agree with your point that the concept has been pushed into situations and realms where it simply does not apply. I hope that you see my humorous point of the absurdity that flows from thinking of free will (or its denial) applies as a universal.

--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

--
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