On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 6:51:08 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > >> > you are obsessed with the christian or abramanic God, but I use the >> term in its original sense given by Plato, where God is the ultimate >> reality. >> > > Ultimate reality? What would make one reality more real than another? To a > physicist pressure is a perfectly real concept, and the idea that pressure > makes a balloon expand is true. And the concept that a million billion > trillion gas molecules are pushing on the inside of a balloon making it > expand is also true. Both ideas exist and both are true, so why is one idea > more real than another? >
john this is really good clear thinking you are offering above. But truth seeking...like wot cosmologists its opposed to glib lawyers for either, both or neither side for the best prirce, hats to see the same reuse of the same good clear thinking regardless of which subject and tense, and above all else, what personal preferences are in place, say due to this or that legacy of having taking one side or another in the past. What I think is that people generally do get to see for themselves these instance with you, of really good clear thinking. But what I haven't seen is that consistency from you. That willingness to represent the same good clear thinking - which often means in practice being open to being corrected by others of the same good clear idea in a different and context, that simply we had not yet fully transferred all our own best thinking into. No one can be consistent all the time. But science-like fields do so very strong have these interlocking properties...that make the transfer of the sort of good clear thinking that we know that we are talking about here, inevitable. Why/ Because fields break apart into fields, and fields merge together into new fields....is the story of science from the start. So we know the good clean thinking has to be seen - within reasonable parameters of delay, everyone being reaonable - but has to be seen across all the different subjects and tenses. Because nothing can ever progress unless that is there. Because all that merging and dividing in the history of science that makes science so uniquely strong, also is the source of the unique frailty of science by the very same coin. If we don't get the consistency - that good clearing thinking that speaks to good clear simply principles...across the board, then everything starts to break down. Where is it with you John? how come the best way to reply to your most recent consciousness/intelligence post to me, is here in another thread. Where....how's when I example the same good clear thinking about natural selection....LITERALLY the same principle as above.....for natural selection....how it's true on a number of levels of abstraction, and how we can use that to clear up our misconceptions at particular levels or contexts....simply because anything that's true at one level has to be consistent with the other levels. but suddenly for you....that kind of talk is daft overcomplicating bullshit. Suddenly natural selections has to be this totally single level single vocabularly thing...suddenly WORDS like BEHAVIOUR have this universality that don't need other words anymore just apply across everything. And John, I think every that does this with you, ends up with the same build up of the same BEHAVIOUR from you. Truth seeking is vulnerable to glib lawyers...because that side of things has always been left to integrity. -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
