On 11/7/2012 12:01 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Sounds reasonable.
Being a conservative, however, I tend to adopt orthodox views
such as that of Leibniz (to my mind at least) and the Bible.
Hi Roger,
I am weird. I tend libertarian, but not archarchist. I see
orthodoxy as OK but only within limited domains.
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: 2012-11-07, 11:02:01
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/7/2012 9:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
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).
Dear Roger,
My belief in God is anticipatory, in the sense that in the eternal struggle of
Becoming, as I hold to be true that the beliefs of observers will almost always converge
on mutually agreed upon facts and thus those observers will have physical worlds with
lawful or nomic relations without assuming that avoid Plato? view that a universal can
exist without being instantiated, as we see here:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/052422q295335527/. These convergences are never a
priori knowledge, they cannot be computed "ahead of time".
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?
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
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.
