Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis
Hi Stephen P. King Now I see that there is a remote hint of what you say in Leibniz's metaphysics. Each monad perceives only the phenomenol world, the world from his own perspective. The actual object is only truly perceived if "perceived" by all perceivers. But that does create the object, the actual object always was, as it is itself a monad, and they can be neither created nor destroyed. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/17/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-17, 06:41:52 Subject: Re: the "God" hypothesis On 11/17/2012 6:33 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal My concept of the infinite regress problem is the one that pops up in materialistic theories of perception. Is there a homunculus in the brain to experience what the eye sees? And if so, does the homunculus have a homunculus inside him to interpret that etc. etc, etc. Dennent wrote a whole book or a lot at least on that issue without coming up with a sensible solution other than to say that it just happens that there is no infinite regress because there cannot be one. It's similar to Aristotle's "First Cause" doctine. Dear Roger, We can solve the homunculus problem by consideration that consciousness requires resources to occur. For example, the 1st homunculus uses 1/2 the resource available, the next uses 1/4, the next uses 1/8, ... This converges to 1 unit of resource, no? Of course this assumes that there are homunculi ... Infinite regresses are only a problem if they are used to avoid a difficult explanation. -- 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis
Hi Bruno Marchal My concept of the infinite regress problem is the one that pops up in materialistic theories of perception. Is there a homunculus in the brain to experience what the eye sees? And if so, does the homunculus have a homunculus inside him to interpret that etc. etc, etc. Dennent wrote a whole book or a lot at least on that issue without coming up with a sensible solution other than to say that it just happens that there is no infinite regress because there cannot be one. It's similar to Aristotle's "First Cause" doctine. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/17/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-16, 11:27:09 Subject: Re: the "God" hypothesis On 15 Nov 2012, at 16:52, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist and Bruno, There is (infinite) regress in physical nature, but not in mind, because mind is non-existent (not created). There are a lot of infinite regress in arithmetic. I am not sure how you related this with created and uncreated. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-12, 11:46:34 Subject: Re: the "God" hypothesis On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 12 Nov 2012, at 15:55, Richard Ruquist wrote: > >> Hi Roger Clough, >> >> Actually the action of mathematical physics gives "everything" the >> reason to live. >> As Hawking says, there is "no need for god if you got quantum gravity". >> >> I confess to giving cosmic consciousness a reason to live. >> http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf >> >> Hopefully, a benevolent, understanding, tolerant and forgiving >> consciousness, >> that somehow chooses the best universe from an infinitude of mental >> possibilities, >> according to Leibniz... >> >> But physical Nature can be stern and unforgiving. >> Life as we know it will eventually disappear from earth, >> for cosmic reasons later, if not human reasons sooner.. > > > Yes, life as we know it, but not necessarily life as we don't know it. Yes. My reasoning is incomplete as all reasonings should be. > > Bruno > > > > >> >> Richard Ruquist >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >>> >>> Hi Stephen P. King >>> >>> Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to >>> exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have >>> a sufficient reason to be (as they are). I don't know how to >>> explain that by anything other than the the "God" hypothesis. >>> >>> >>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net >>> 11/12/2012 >>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >>> >>> >>> - Receiving the following content - >>> From: Stephen P. King >>> Receiver: everything-list >>> Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31 >>> Subject: Re: Communicability >>> >>> >>> On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed them during manufacture. >>> >>> >>> Hi Roger, >>> >>> The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead >>> to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories >>> and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is easy to >>> fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and there >>> is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets that >>> have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but any >>> time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons for it. >>> er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/10/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23 Subject: Re: Communicability On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > > Hi Stephen P. King > > Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up inside. No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be "perfectly lined up". ... Right. > That's Platonia. > > Now invert the box and let the crackers fall, scattering on the > floor and some even breaking. That's our contingent world. > > Nobody knows why, but that's the way time works. -- 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at
Re: Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis
Hi Richard Ruquist Call it what you want, but anything existent exists according to some pre-existing physical rules etc. Some Cosmic intelligence. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-15, 08:54:54 Subject: Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis Hi Roger Clough, As you have been told, quantum gravity is contained within each string theory monad. No one knows where that came from, certainly not any god that humans are connected to. Richard On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stephen Hawking, > > So quantum gravity was designed and created by > mindless, random, brute forces ? Or came out > of nothing at all, not even intelligence, not even > an idea or form ? Not even the tooth fairy ? > > This nonsense you apparently believe shows > that materialistic thinking can cause brain damage. > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 11/15/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: Bruno Marchal > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-11-12, 10:56:40 > Subject: Re: the "God" hypothesis > > On 12 Nov 2012, at 15:55, Richard Ruquist wrote: > >> Hi Roger Clough, >> >> Actually the action of mathematical physics gives "everything" the >> reason to live. >> As Hawking says, there is "no need for god if you got quantum >> gravity". >> >> I confess to giving cosmic consciousness a reason to live. >> http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf >> >> Hopefully, a benevolent, understanding, tolerant and forgiving >> consciousness, >> that somehow chooses the best universe from an infinitude of mental >> possibilities, >> according to Leibniz... >> >> But physical Nature can be stern and unforgiving. >> Life as we know it will eventually disappear from earth, >> for cosmic reasons later, if not human reasons sooner.. > > Yes, life as we know it, but not necessarily life as we don't know it. > > Bruno > > > >> >> Richard Ruquist >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough >> wrote: >>> Hi Stephen P. King >>> >>> Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to >>> exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have >>> a sufficient reason to be (as they are). I don't know how to >>> explain that by anything other than the the "God" hypothesis. >>> >>> >>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net >>> 11/12/2012 >>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >>> >>> >>> - Receiving the following content - >>> From: Stephen P. King >>> Receiver: everything-list >>> Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31 >>> Subject: Re: Communicability >>> >>> >>> On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >>>> Hi Stephen P. King >>>> >>>> There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed >>>> them during manufacture. >>> >>> Hi Roger, >>> >>> The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead >>> to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories >>> and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is >>> easy to >>> fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and >>> there >>> is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets >>> that >>> have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but >>> any >>> time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons >>> for it. >>> >>>> >>>> er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net >>>> 11/10/2012 >>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >>>> >>>> >>>> - Receiving the following content - >>>> From: Stephen P. King >>>> Receiver: everything-list >>>> Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23 >>>> Subject: Re: Communicability >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >>>>> Hi Stephen P. King >>>>> >>>>> Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up >>>>&
Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis
Hi Richard Ruquist and Bruno, There is (infinite) regress in physical nature, but not in mind, because mind is non-existent (not created). [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-12, 11:46:34 Subject: Re: the "God" hypothesis On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 12 Nov 2012, at 15:55, Richard Ruquist wrote: > >> Hi Roger Clough, >> >> Actually the action of mathematical physics gives "everything" the >> reason to live. >> As Hawking says, there is "no need for god if you got quantum gravity". >> >> I confess to giving cosmic consciousness a reason to live. >> http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf >> >> Hopefully, a benevolent, understanding, tolerant and forgiving >> consciousness, >> that somehow chooses the best universe from an infinitude of mental >> possibilities, >> according to Leibniz... >> >> But physical Nature can be stern and unforgiving. >> Life as we know it will eventually disappear from earth, >> for cosmic reasons later, if not human reasons sooner.. > > > Yes, life as we know it, but not necessarily life as we don't know it. Yes. My reasoning is incomplete as all reasonings should be. > > Bruno > > > > >> >> Richard Ruquist >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >>> >>> Hi Stephen P. King >>> >>> Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to >>> exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have >>> a sufficient reason to be (as they are). I don't know how to >>> explain that by anything other than the the "God" hypothesis. >>> >>> >>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net >>> 11/12/2012 >>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >>> >>> >>> - Receiving the following content - >>> From: Stephen P. King >>> Receiver: everything-list >>> Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31 >>> Subject: Re: Communicability >>> >>> >>> On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed them during manufacture. >>> >>> >>> Hi Roger, >>> >>> The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead >>> to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories >>> and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is easy to >>> fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and there >>> is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets that >>> have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but any >>> time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons for it. >>> er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/10/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23 Subject: Re: Communicability On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > > Hi Stephen P. King > > Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up inside. No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be "perfectly lined up". ... Right. > That's Platonia. > > Now invert the box and let the crackers fall, scattering on the > floor and some even breaking. That's our contingent world. > > Nobody knows why, but that's the way time works. -- 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Everything List" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everythi
Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis
Hi Richard Ruquist That's just my point. You can't have quantum gravity unless it emerged from mind ior universal intelligence. Where there's smoke, there's fire. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list,Swines,zoo_no_facts Time: 2012-11-12, 08:55:09 Subject: Re: the "God" hypothesis Hi Roger Clough, Actually the action of mathematical physics gives "everything" the reason to live. As Hawking says, there is "no need for god if you got quantum gravity". I confess to giving cosmic consciousness a reason to live. http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf Hopefully, a benevolent, understanding, tolerant and forgiving consciousness, that somehow chooses the best universe from an infinitude of mental possibilities, according to Leibniz... But physical Nature can be stern and unforgiving. Life as we know it will eventually disappear from earth, for cosmic reasons later, if not human reasons sooner.. Richard Ruquist On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stephen P. King > > Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to > exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have > a sufficient reason to be (as they are). I don't know how to > explain that by anything other than the the "God" hypothesis. > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 11/12/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: Stephen P. King > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31 > Subject: Re: Communicability > > > On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> Hi Stephen P. King >> >> There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed >> them during manufacture. > > Hi Roger, > > The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead > to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories > and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is easy to > fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and there > is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets that > have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but any > time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons for it. > >> >> er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net >> 11/10/2012 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >> >> >> - Receiving the following content - >> From: Stephen P. King >> Receiver: everything-list >> Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23 >> Subject: Re: Communicability >> >> >> On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >>> Hi Stephen P. King >>> >>> Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up inside. >> No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be >> "perfectly lined up". ... Right. >> >>> That's Platonia. >>> >>> Now invert the box and let the crackers fall, scattering on the >>> floor and some even breaking. That's our contingent world. >>> >>> Nobody knows why, but that's the way time works. >> >> -- >> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> > > > -- > 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@
Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis
Hi Roger Clough, As you have been told, quantum gravity is contained within each string theory monad. No one knows where that came from, certainly not any god that humans are connected to. Richard On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stephen Hawking, > > So quantum gravity was designed and created by > mindless, random, brute forces ? Or came out > of nothing at all, not even intelligence, not even > an idea or form ? Not even the tooth fairy ? > > This nonsense you apparently believe shows > that materialistic thinking can cause brain damage. > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 11/15/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: Bruno Marchal > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-11-12, 10:56:40 > Subject: Re: the "God" hypothesis > > On 12 Nov 2012, at 15:55, Richard Ruquist wrote: > >> Hi Roger Clough, >> >> Actually the action of mathematical physics gives "everything" the >> reason to live. >> As Hawking says, there is "no need for god if you got quantum >> gravity". >> >> I confess to giving cosmic consciousness a reason to live. >> http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf >> >> Hopefully, a benevolent, understanding, tolerant and forgiving >> consciousness, >> that somehow chooses the best universe from an infinitude of mental >> possibilities, >> according to Leibniz... >> >> But physical Nature can be stern and unforgiving. >> Life as we know it will eventually disappear from earth, >> for cosmic reasons later, if not human reasons sooner.. > > Yes, life as we know it, but not necessarily life as we don't know it. > > Bruno > > > >> >> Richard Ruquist >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough >> wrote: >>> Hi Stephen P. King >>> >>> Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to >>> exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have >>> a sufficient reason to be (as they are). I don't know how to >>> explain that by anything other than the the "God" hypothesis. >>> >>> >>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net >>> 11/12/2012 >>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >>> >>> >>> - Receiving the following content - >>> From: Stephen P. King >>> Receiver: everything-list >>> Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31 >>> Subject: Re: Communicability >>> >>> >>> On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed them during manufacture. >>> >>> Hi Roger, >>> >>> The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead >>> to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories >>> and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is >>> easy to >>> fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and >>> there >>> is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets >>> that >>> have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but >>> any >>> time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons >>> for it. >>> er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/10/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23 Subject: Re: Communicability On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stephen P. King > > Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up > inside. No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be "perfectly lined up". ... Right. > That's Platonia. > > Now invert the box and let the crackers fall, scattering on the > floor and some even breaking. That's our contingent world. > > Nobody knows why, but that's the way time works. -- 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 everything- >>> l...@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en >>> . >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To post to thi
Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis
Hi Stephen Hawking, So quantum gravity was designed and created by mindless, random, brute forces ? Or came out of nothing at all, not even intelligence, not even an idea or form ? Not even the tooth fairy ? This nonsense you apparently believe shows that materialistic thinking can cause brain damage. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-12, 10:56:40 Subject: Re: the "God" hypothesis On 12 Nov 2012, at 15:55, Richard Ruquist wrote: > Hi Roger Clough, > > Actually the action of mathematical physics gives "everything" the > reason to live. > As Hawking says, there is "no need for god if you got quantum > gravity". > > I confess to giving cosmic consciousness a reason to live. > http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf > > Hopefully, a benevolent, understanding, tolerant and forgiving > consciousness, > that somehow chooses the best universe from an infinitude of mental > possibilities, > according to Leibniz... > > But physical Nature can be stern and unforgiving. > Life as we know it will eventually disappear from earth, > for cosmic reasons later, if not human reasons sooner.. Yes, life as we know it, but not necessarily life as we don't know it. Bruno > > Richard Ruquist > > > > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough > wrote: >> Hi Stephen P. King >> >> Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to >> exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have >> a sufficient reason to be (as they are). I don't know how to >> explain that by anything other than the the "God" hypothesis. >> >> >> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net >> 11/12/2012 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >> >> >> - Receiving the following content - >> From: Stephen P. King >> Receiver: everything-list >> Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31 >> Subject: Re: Communicability >> >> >> On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >>> Hi Stephen P. King >>> >>> There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed >>> them during manufacture. >> >> Hi Roger, >> >> The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead >> to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories >> and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is >> easy to >> fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and >> there >> is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets >> that >> have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but >> any >> time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons >> for it. >> >>> >>> er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net >>> 11/10/2012 >>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >>> >>> >>> - Receiving the following content - >>> From: Stephen P. King >>> Receiver: everything-list >>> Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23 >>> Subject: Re: Communicability >>> >>> >>> On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up inside. >>> No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be >>> "perfectly lined up". ... Right. >>> That's Platonia. Now invert the box and let the crackers fall, scattering on the floor and some even breaking. That's our contingent world. Nobody knows why, but that's the way time works. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com >>> . >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en >>> . >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 everything- >> l...@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en >> . >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everything- >> l...@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en >> . >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Everything List" group. > To post to this group,