On 5/1/2013 12:34 PM, John Mikes wrote:
I would not draw nth conclusions on a plain assumption.
Particles (IMO) are explanatory presumptions upon (mostly math-phys) temporary
explanatory 'understanding' of some phenomena we got.
Tables and chairs are also explanatory presumptions for some experiences I have. So are
other people. Radical agnosticism, like solipism, is impossible to act on.
So are the reasons for 'dacay' taken from the limited access we have so far.
- The rest of it goes into the term RANDOM.
1000 years ago there was more 'random' than today. So was 'emergent' and 'unexplainable
(not that all our today's explanations are 'perfect' (I do not use "true").
My agnostic view includes future explanations for - what we call - particulate decay
(random in today's usage).
If we suppose 'order' in the world - nothing is random.
That reminds me of Kant's argument: If we assume there is justice, then their must be an
afterlife in which this life's injustices are redressed. Instead of inventing an
unobservable afterlife the simpler and more obvious conclusion is that we were wrong when
we assumed there is justice.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.