Hi Stephen P. King Your criticism might be valid, but I never made the claim that Berkeley is said to have made. Leibniz, possibly more like you, would never have made such a claim. Leibniz believed that God is purposeful (caused things to happen at least partially due to end causes).
Roger Clough, [email protected] 11/7/2012 "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, 18:12:43 Subject: Re: Communicability 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. -- 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.
