eiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-24, 09:03:42
Subject: Re: Does Platonia exist ?
On 24 Sep 2012, at 12:32, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Bruno Marchal
>
> But R^3 is not extended in spacetime, is not at location r at ti
On 24 Sep 2012, at 12:32, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
But R^3 is not extended in spacetime, is not at location r at time t
and isn't a physical but a mental object
What makes you sure that the "physical" is not a mental object?
I would say rather that R^3 inheres.
Not sure th
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-22, 15:40:12
Subject: Re: Does Platonia exist ?
On 9/22/2012 5:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Alberto G. Corona
>
>
> If we can define what we are talking about, most o
t; -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-22, 15:49:55
Subject: Re: Does Platonia exist ?
On 22 Sep 2012, at 11:25, Roger Clough wrote:
ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal
I think we should only use the word "exists" onl
On 22 Sep 2012, at 11:25, Roger Clough wrote:
ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal
I think we should only use the word "exists" only when we are
referring to physical existence.
BRUNO: Hmm That might aggravate the naturalist or materialist
human penchant.
ROGER: Why ? Naturalist and materialist en
On 9/22/2012 5:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Alberto G. Corona
If we can define what we are talking about, most of our problems
will be solved.
That is why I believe we ought to use the Descartes-Leibniz definition
of physical existence as that which is in spacetime (is extended).
Thus the bra
1, 12:42:47
Subject: Re: Does Platonia exist ?
Hi,
Anyone serious about knowing truths must either spend its life trying to define
the concept of existence and fighting for it or?
to discard it for all uses. The concept of phisical exsitence has a primitive
utilitary nature: ?re there men
ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal
I think we should only use the word "exists" only when we are
referring to physical existence.
BRUNO: Hmm That might aggravate the naturalist or materialist human
penchant.
ROGER: Why ? Naturalist and materialist entities are extended and so physically
exist.
W
Hi,
Anyone serious about knowing truths must either spend its life trying to
define the concept of existence and fighting for it or
to discard it for all uses. The concept of phisical exsitence has a
primitive utilitary nature: Are there men in the other side of the
mountain?. This urgent need to
On 21 Sep 2012, at 12:21, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I think we should only use the word "exists" only when we are
referring to physical existence.
Hmm That might aggravate the naturalist or materialist human
penchant.
Thus I can truthfully say,
for example, that God d
Hi Bruno Marchal
I think we should only use the word "exists" only when we are
referring to physical existence. Thus I can truthfully say,
for example, that God does not exist.
Wikipedia says, "In common usage, it [existence]
is the world we are aware of through our senses,
and that persis
11 matches
Mail list logo
