On 11/6/2012 11:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Even Berkeley had to admit that no forest, no whatever..
was foolishness and so said that in that case, God
observed it. Get real.
Hi Roger,
Then you are explicitly admitting that God's only purpose is to be
an Absolute observer in whose eye all truth is definite. The problem is
that such ideas cannot explain how that definiteness is consistent with
the experimental results that confirm the violation of Bell's theorem
and other theorems (Gleason, Kochen-Specker). All I am claiming is that
the totality of all observers act as the absolute observer, not some
hypothetical entity that if examined carefully falls apart as
self-contradictory. What is so blasphemous about claiming that We are God?
Roger Clough, [email protected]
11/6/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-06, 10:35:37
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/6/2012 4:56 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
OK, let me rephrase the question. If a tree
falls in the forest with nobody to observe it, will
it end up on the ground ?
Hi Roger,
There is no tree nor forest nor ground nor any action in that
condition.
Roger Clough, [email protected]
11/6/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-05, 22:00:20
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/5/2012 2:30 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
A tape recorder could prove your theory wrong.
A tape recorder is an example of an observer of sounds, so no, my
theory stands.
Berkeley finally gave in and said that realism
was acceptable because God could see or hear it.
Roger Clough, [email protected]
11/5/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-05, 11:10:06
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/5/2012 10:35 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Infallibility isn't involved. The typical textbook
explanation for realism is, "if a tree falls in a
forest and nobody is there to hear it, would it
make a sound?"
A realist (such as me) would say "yes."
The logician in me would say "no!" Because a sound is something
that must be capable of being heard to exist. If no one is truly around,
then the noise that the tree might make cannot be heard and thus there
is not a sound.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
