On Thursday, October 31, 2024 at 4:53:27 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 10/31/2024 3:07 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thursday, October 31, 2024 at 1:44:15 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 1:37 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > *Wheeler's answer explains nothing,* *I think it explains a great deal, especially considering the fact that it's only 13 words long. * *Wheeler is just translating EFE, Einstein's Field Equation, into words. I have no objection if you like it, but IMO it adds nothing, explains nothing beyond what the equation states. AG * *> **just repeating what EFE says**, * *Maybe, maybe not. Google says EFE is a Spanish news agency, but I don't know if that's what you meant. And by the way, IHA.* *>There could be an unlimited sequence of "why's", * *Yes there could be.* *> or the sequence might terminate in profound knowledge, but likely NOT in an event without a cause, * *That doesn't make any sense. If the sequence terminates in X then wouldn't you want to know WHY it terminates in X ? If X is "NOT in an event without a cause" then you'd want to know what sort of thing DID cause X, and how and why it did so; therefore the sequence of "why" questions does NOT terminate with X.* *Since we're nowhere near what we're speculating about, this train of thought is useless. However, I affirm that an irreducible event is unintelligible to human understanding. Without some rule for the emergence of an event, aka a cause, there is no way to understand it. * *A rule would just be Einstein's equations plus a few rules for applying them. A cause would be something different and prior in time. * *A rule for one person, could be a cause for another person! Don't ya think? There could be an unintelligible assertion at the foundation of one's understanding OR what you describe below. But suppose there is a God. How could he/she abide by, tolorate. irreducible random events? What tools or whatever could he/she use to make something happen or not happen? I see what bothered AE about this concept. AG. * * Given your assertions there is either always going to be an unintelligible assertion at the foundation of one's understanding OR there's going to be a circular relation of concepts that you may follow around until you reach one that you understand. I think of this as a virtuous circle of explantion, something like this: Brent * *Some people think probability can be conceived of as a cause. I disagree with this conclusion. AG* -- 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 view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e85d9193-435b-444a-a554-32f4f63e13e6n%40googlegroups.com.
