--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F1^00003 Date: 01/29/98 From: RICHARD MEIC Time: 05:05pm \/To: WILLIAM ELLIOT (Read 0 times) Subj: "Existence Exists" Salutatio William! 28-Jan-98, William Elliot wrote to Todd Henson Subject: "Existence Exists" >>>> Todd Henson on "Existence Exists" TH>> The universe, by its nature, is necessarily finite. I explained TH>> this to you before with the analogy of the half-infinite line, TH>> which you never addressed, and couldn't counter. WE> But a half infinite line [0, infinity) is of infinite length. So WE> is the mirror image (-infinity, 0] which could be an universe that WE> alway was but comes to an end. Negative integers a simple WE> example: ... -n-1, -n, ... ,-2, -1, 0 while the more accustomed 0, WE> 1, 2, ... ,n ,n+1, ... positive integers Hey, I like that one. Have you seen my "spagetti noodle with only one end" analogy? |) ---- BTW, that razor is sharp enough to cut a fundies beliefs to shreds. Dicere... email address (vrmeic@spots.ab.ca) Richard Meic --- Terminate 5.00/Pro * Origin: Observe, hypothesize, prove. (1:134/242.7) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F1^00004 Date: 01/29/98 From: RICHARD MEIC Time: 05:16pm \/To: MR. RIGOR (Read 0 times) Subj: Time and Again Salutatio Mr. Rigor! 29-Jan-98, Mr. Rigor wrote to Todd Henson Subject: Time and Again TH>> The universe, by its nature, is necessarily finite. MR> This statement seems vaguely worded. Like biblical text, perhaps? TH>> Time is the same as any finite progression of events. If time TH>> were infinite then its existence would simultaneously exhibit all TH>> points of possible existence. MR> I dispute this claim. How? TH>> Arbitrarily saying that it always existed is not only illogical, TH>> but a cowardly cop-out. Every finite sequence has a beginning. MR> I don't see how accusations of cowardice contribute to your MR> argument. They do not, of course. TH>> It hinges on the first question I posed. We can agree that if TH>> there was ever a point in which absolutely nothing exists, then TH>> nothing would EVER exist. MR> If "we" means you and I, then no. I do not agree with this MR> implication. I'm not sure how the intended recipient of your MR> message thinks. If you have lurked here long enough you would know. Shall we discuss this, I find your responses interesting,... perhaps even haunting. TH>> Now, the second half of that is that if there was ever a time in TH>> which anything DID exist, then that means that there is a level TH>> of reality which has always existed. MR> Disagreed. Why? TH>> Remember, if nothing exists, nothing ever will because there TH>> would be nothing to cause anything. So, seeing as how something TH>> DOES exist, then we know that there was NEVER a point in which TH>> nothing existed. MR> You seem to be assuming that everything that exists has an MR> external cause. I dispute this assumption. How? TH>> Any sequence of progression, whether it be chickens or moments in TH>> time, by its very nature, is finite and had a beginning, MR> Many do not regard the "progression" of time as a "sequence", MR> which is a discrete sort of thing, but as a linearly ordered MR> continuum with an uncountably infinite number of points. Such a MR> model renders all "chicken and egg" analogies faulty. Thanks a lot, I was leading up to this and you ruined it. :( TH>> else it would not be in the process of progressing from state to TH>> state because its infinite existence would already encompass all TH>> points and possibilites and wouldn't be in a process of TH>> progression or change. MR> Again I dispute this implication. Again, how? MR> While I may not have seen this "everything I've told you so far", MR> it would appear that the contents of the message I am replying to MR> do not establish the finiteness of time, at least in many senses MR> of the word "finite". I think what's needed most is a MR> clarification of terminology. Provide your definitions of these terminologies and we shall see. MR> This conclusion seems to depend at least partly on an assumption MR> that everything that exists has an external cause, which I again MR> dispute Too vague, elaborate. Dicere... email address (vrmeic@spots.ab.ca) Richard Meic --- Terminate 5.00/Pro * Origin: (0) Always watching. (1:134/242.7) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F1^00005 Date: 01/30/98 From: FRANK MASINGILL Time: 08:14am \/To: DAVID MARTORANA (Read 0 times) Subj: P.T. Chardin FM> Please satisfy my curiosity, David. Are you referring to _The FM> Phenomenon of Man_, _How I Believe_ or some of his more mystic and FM> autobiographical writings, the name of which escapes me. I knew almost FM> nothing of his personal belief until I read the _How I Believe_. One FM> might INFER some things from his other writings, to be sure. Nothing FM> like somebody coming right out and telling you in plain language as he FM> did. DM> Been about 25/30 years since I spent serious time reading him. He DM> touched me in the head and I never forgot ....in fact, of the three DM> people in my life able to light my candles, he was the Are the other two people published authors or family members you prefer ot to name? At any rate, it was, coincidentally, about the same length of time ago hat I first became acquainted with Chardin, not, at first through his most famous work but through some lecture and films developed by followers attempting to diagram his notion of the progression from biosphere through noosphere to culmination in the Divine drawing force of his "within of things." I gather that Chardin is, however, merely a category of thought that you once encountered, that it exacted a certain youthful emotion which you feel you have outgrown or placed in some more modern and contemporary context. Am I accurate in this supposition? As I might have intimated in some earlier post, my earlier life was cast n the mode of Evangelistic Fundamentalism, foreign to that which the well-educated Jesuits know as transcendence. Circumstances dictated that I only began higher education after reaching some maturity following service in World War II. It was only then that I became familiar with the great Christian mystics though oddly enough my education was in "secular" institutions where it was only accidental when one encountered non-positivistic professors and was introduced to non-positivistic iterature. My only encounter to that point with "mysticism" was with the story of St. Paul and his visions or with the notion that the older prophets in Judaism were "busy predicting future political events" or "hearing the literal voice of God dictating in detail what kings and people should DO!" Then I began to hear about and the read people like Meister Eckhardt and discover to my very great surprise that these men and women did not speak in terms of "hearing voices outside of their consciousness" or "voices contrary to reason" but simply did not accord the various religious rituals of the age and milieu into which they had been placed of any great importance in the thoughts they considered authentic. Eckhardt was quite clear about this and found that in contrast to the religious institutions of which I had xperience where bowing and scraping to the deity was not something they felt to have ANYTHING TO DO WITH communication with the divine. If anything, they hardly made any distinction at all between the "divine" and the "human" within their experience of consciousness except as poles of a tension. When Chardin came along and spoke so clearly on the rejection of any necessity of an assumption of survival of an individual ego in the final resolution of any eschatology this was even more of a revelation to me and it squared with what I learned from Voegelin in the serious investigation along purely philosophical lines. Of course Martin Buber, Nicolas Berdiaev and from the more modern evangelical tradition, Peter Bertocci appeared to confirm these suspicions that divinity was not related to some entity BEYOND consciousness associated with some archetypical figure unchained somewhere in the blue. It then became clearer to me that reality of the experiences within consciousness as related at first or second hand down through the centuries f man's existence whether paleontological (fossil leavings) or historical (written records) were NOT related to the gnostic notion of some mysterious beyond to be reached through gradations of ACTIONS on the part of the experiencing consciousness but were PRESENT right there in the experiencing consciousness itself. Lying or sitting around waiting for some audible voice from some concrete BEYOND made less and less sense, no matter how deeply the Fundementalist believes this to be the ONLY contact of the human with the divine in the world. The notion of "God" writing books or of "Moses" writing books had seemed rather strange to me even BEFORE I began to meditate seriously on man's actual existence and experience. I listened very carefully to Voegelin's insistence that there IS NO TRUTH LYING AROUND SOMEWHERE FOR SOMEBODY TO STUMBLE UPON THROUGH A FORTUITOUS DISCOVERY. The truth of existence is not OUT THERE SOMEWHERE but is precisely the ealization of the reality existing WITHIN this consciousness which reveals and is revealing itself in many modes and certainly not always harmoniously and in complete fullness. That is the point of contact that I found with Chardin's stress on the "within of things" which I found far more important than his mechanics of the evolutionary process. It is obvious from some of the observations of some of the haters of humanity who post here on this echo that the availability of what IS revealed in consciousness is NOT available to all "conscious" beings and why that is so IS a mystery. Plato could only write what he had discovered and Aristotle could only take that and enlarge upon it - BOTH were quite well aware that the hordes of human beings who, of necessity, had to be politically assembled and ruled throughout epochs lacked the spiritual sensitivity to operate outside of confining religions (civic clubs for compatible families) or ideologies (secular aping of the dynamics at the origin of the religious impuleses. This does not mean that Chardin is other than one of the forces ringing true in a certain phase of what I uncovered as the truth of existence available for my feeble grasp. DM> higher than his words reflect. I found (find) him scary. Those that can DM> enter and expand another's mind also take something from it. As DM> over-mentioned in previous postings, the learning/thinking experience is DM> NOT simple for me. I am quite serious; why did you find him "scary." That puzzled me, I ust confess. DM> tip of memory. There was much overlap between writings. I cannot That is what I deduced from what I read OF him and ABOUT him. This is often true of great thinkers in one mode or another. Nicolas Berdiaev wrote multitude of books, all about the same thickness, but they all come out of a store of knowledge of philosphy AND religion and although they bear different titles one finds oneself reading virtually the same thing albeit with certain quotes pointed up. Only in one of them, for example, will you find his assurance [paraphrase] that the "saved or not going to climb into heaven over the suffering bodies of the damned" which they appear so greatly to enjoy as they contemplate some grand "rapture." Such an experience of the Christian gospel would have been repugnant to him. Moreover, he was honest enough not to give any philosophical assurance of the truth of Christianity but he had found in philosophical searching that without some kind of redeeming act it was virtually impossible to make sense of the world. Well, that's it for this post. If you aren't asleep by now. zzzzzzz (grin). Sincerely, Frank --- PPoint 2.05 * Origin: Maybe in 5,000 years - frankmas@juno.com (1:396/45.12) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F1^00006 Date: 01/30/98 From: TODD HENSON Time: 02:51am \/To: WILLIAM ELLIOT (Read 0 times) Subj: "Existence Exists" TH> The universe, by its nature, is necessarily finite. I explained this TH> to you before with the analogy of the half-infinite line, which you TH> never addressed, and couldn't counter. WE> But a half infinite line [0, infinity) is of infinite length. So is No, its a logical contradiction. Either it's infinite or its not. How many half pregnant women have you met? How many things only half exist. What you are proposing ignores common sense, and ignores everything said. WE> the mirror image (-infinity, 0] which could be an universe that alway WE> was but comes to an end. Negative integers a simple example: ... WE> -n-1, -n, ... ,-2, -1, 0 while the more accustomed 0, 1, 2, ... ,n WE> ,n+1, ... positive integers. ... Blue Wave - World Tour - 1998 --- * Origin: Nite Lite BBS (1:2410/534) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F1^00007 Date: 01/30/98 From: TODD HENSON Time: 02:54am \/To: RICHARD MEIC (Read 0 times) Subj: Time and Again RM>> The nature of time/space seems to contradict any theory of a RM>> beginning to the universe. Unless your the kind that would cop RM>> out and state that time/space was made to _look_ that way . TH> The universe, by its nature, is necessarily finite. I explained TH> this to you before with the analogy of the half-infinite line, TH> which you never addressed, and couldn't counter. RM> This is the kind of blatant ignorance that you have been tossing in RM> everyone's face since you "SAW THE LIGHT". Truth is, Todd, you seem RM> to be unable to accept other points of view, or other arguments RM> (especially the ones that rip your ideas to itty bitty pieces). You Truth is, you have yet to ever come up with any kind of valid refutation to anything I have ever posed - the only rebuttal I ever receive from you is this exact type of reaction - anger, frustration, and character attacks. Is this a philosophy echo or a grade school playground? If you cannot offer a decent answer, please don't dishonor yourself by displays like this. TH> Time is limited in scope, but constantly progressing. The key here TH> is to understand that anytime you have a progression of events, TH> such as a sequence of moments of time, a numeric progression, TH> chicken and egg scenario, etc. you are dealing with the finite. TH> For instance, lets look at chickens and eggs. A chicken lays an TH> egg, the egg makes a chicken, the chicken lays another egg, which TH> makes yet another chicken. How long has this continued? Can you TH> count the number of generations of chickens since the beginning? TH> Its a big number, however, both evolutionists and creationists TH> understand that there are points in history where there were no TH> chickens, and there are periods afterward where there certainly TH> were. TH> Time is the same as any finite progression of events. RM> Sure,... IF time is a finite progression, right? Y'see this is an RM> assumption. Assumption is not a problem in philosophical discussion, RM> so we can banter this one about first. Time COULD be an "infinite" RM> progression of events,... this we can discuss after, deal? Show me how each moment that passes is of infinite length. Show me how time does not progress, but is a ever-present "now". TH> If time were TH> infinite then its existence would simultaneously exhibit all TH> points of possible existence. Time isn't like that. RM> Perhaps not for us linear beings. Methinks it is a matter of RM> perspective, a matter of whether one exists from moment to moment or RM> everywhen. How would we know otherwise, really? No one to MY Oh please... RM> knowledge has ever existed simultaneously in every moment of time, BUT RM> that does not rule out ANY being existing in that way. That's like saying nobody has ever witnessed Porky Pig in Godhood but not ruling out the possibility altogether. Are gonna do phil here or play with semantics? TH> Time TH> progresses moment by moment RM> Exactly,... but for us. Our perspective of time is all we have to go RM> on... well that and our imagination. TH> - it doesn't matter if you measure TH> moments in years, seconds, etc - the effect is the same. One TH> finite moment of time passes and ends, RM> Yes, one can break up the flow of time in that way, and think of it as RM> a kind of movie film one watches in the theater (one picture at a time RM> really fast). But no matter how small your pieces are there will RM> always be a smaller piece. Where does it end? Is time not, like RM> matter, infinitely divisible? TH> then another comes and TH> goes, and so on. It is a finite progression of events. Time is TH> continually moving toward the future. Moments that are now in TH> transition are the present, and the present moments move into the TH> past, and new moments that have never happened before are now TH> added to the sequence. RM> I understand, and agree in part, but those moments are also composed RM> of smaller moments, and those smaller moments are composed of even RM> smaller moments, and on and on. That's like the old nonsense paradox that because any distance can be further divided into smaller ones, that travel from point A to B is impossible. I'm sure you've heard of it. It's an example of a non-existant limitation created by people's imagination but which has no observable credibility. TH> If time were infinite, the it would not pass. RM> You will have to explain this in more detail. Why would time not pass RM> if it were infinite in duration (which is what I meant by infinite)? My entire message served that purpose. Maybe if you didn't start off with an emotional reaction like you did... TH> it continually TH> passes from one mode of temporal existence to new modes that it TH> did not occupy. That is why there are moments that have not TH> happened yet - time's existence is finite, and as more moments TH> pass, time is covering new moments that it did not previously TH> cover. RM> Yes, BUT from our perspective as linear beings. If you wish to RM> confine this part of the discussion to linear existence, I can RM> accommodate you for a while? How many non-linear beings do you know that would like to participate in this discussion? TH> Arbitrarily saying that it always existed is not only illogical, TH> but a cowardly cop-out. Every finite sequence has a beginning. RM> Every FINITE sequence has a beginning. This is true,... if one RM> assumes a finite aspect to time. Hey I was proposing just one idea RM> (ie. that if space is curved, as Einstein theorized, and if time and RM> space are linked together, also as Einstein theorized, then time too RM> may very well be curved) Depends on what you mean by "curved". TH> It hinges on the first question I posed. We can agree that if TH> there was ever a point in which absolutely nothing exists, then TH> nothing would EVER exist. Now, the second half of that is that if TH> there was ever a time in which anything DID exist, then that means TH> that there is a level of reality which has always existed. TH> Remember, if nothing exists, nothing ever will because there would TH> be nothing to cause anything. So, seeing as how something DOES TH> exist, then we know that there was NEVER a point in which nothing TH> existed. RM> This seems logically correct. TH> Now, the universe does not exhibit characteristics of infinite as TH> I have explained. There is another level of reality which does not TH> change, which is beyond time, which as always existed and always TH> will, and that is the origin of the universe. Any sequence of TH> progression, whether it be chickens or moments in time, by its TH> very nature, is finite and had a beginning, else it would not be TH> in the process of progressing from state to state because its TH> infinite existence would already encompass all points and TH> possibilites and wouldn't be in a process of progression or TH> change. TH> Time flows in one direction, and is often compared to a line. RM> A spagetti noodle? Actually, that would be a segment TH> A TH> mathematical line is construct that is an infinite set of points TH> along a direction. Infinite in both directions. The scenario you TH> are proposing is that the past extends into infinity, yet we see TH> that the future is still happening. That makes the line infinite TH> in one way, yet finite in the other. You cannot have something TH> that is half-infinite. That's illogical. RM> I kind of like the idea of a looooooong spagetti noodle with only one RM> end. But if one looks at it this way: RM> Time is always progressing (AFAWK) in one direction, but it is still RM> progressing. Can you think of a point in which all time ceases to RM> progress forward? It is in this way that I mean that time is RM> infinite. Infinite in *duration*. That does not equal infinity, only boundlessness. Start at point "A" and draw a line 3 "units" long. Extend its length by 10. By another 1000. By a million. By a million billion billion zillion. Infinite yet? Add another zillion zillion zillion zillion zillion. Any limits found to its extension potential yet? No. Is it infinite yet? No, just longer. If it were truly infinite in scope, there would be no more points to extend it to because it would already occupy all points simultaneously, without beginning or end. There would never be a time in which it wasn't infinite, nor will there be a time when it will not be. Our univers does not exhibit those properties. Nuff said. TH> The very nature and behavior of the universe under the laws of TH> physics demands a finite universe. RM> No, I must disagree here. PEOPLE demand a finite universe. IMO, this RM> is because it IS so hard to fathom infinity (just like it is hard to RM> fathom 4 spacial dimensions), so people do not prefer to think of the RM> universe as infinite. It is easier and more comfortable to think that RM> it is finite. I care not for "feelings". For many athiests, it is easier for them to believe in an "infinite" universe than to deal with creationsist questions of how it all came to be. The argument above is nonsense, and does not apply to everyone's "feelings". It has no place in an objective exploration of existence. RM> There are two different schools of thought on finity and infinity when RM> it comes to the universe. Yes, it seems that small parts of existence RM> are finite (the chicken/egg thing), but where did the first creature RM> come from in this universe of our's? If every moment in time RM> (whatever the size) succeeds another moment in time, where was the RM> first moment in time? What caused the fist moment in time? The Big RM> Bang? How did the Big Bang start? What started that which started RM> the Big Bang? What started that? And so on *infinitely*. No, you haven't paid attention. You just got through agreeing with the following: TH> It hinges on the first question I posed. We can agree that if TH> there was ever a point in which absolutely nothing exists, then TH> nothing would EVER exist. Now, the second half of that is that if TH> there was ever a time in which anything DID exist, then that means TH> that there is a level of reality which has always existed. TH> Remember, if nothing exists, nothing ever will because there would TH> be nothing to cause anything. So, seeing as how something DOES TH> exist, then we know that there was NEVER a point in which nothing TH> existed. RM> This seems logically correct. Therefore, the backwards progression of where it all began does NOT go back to infinity. Since this continuum isn't infinite, and seeing how the above was, by your agreement, logically correct, the conclusion is obvious. There are levels of existence which are finite, and those which are infinite. The finite was created by the infinite "thing" that has always existed out of logical necessity. This is the Origin. It's maybe an energy, a force, or God, or quantum properties, etc which always existed and always will. THAT is what brought the finite into existence. TH> The universe operates on TH> entropy and inertia. Eventually, stars "die", energy dissipates. TH> Angular monentum is lost - maybe bled off in the form of scattered TH> heat. The natural tendency is toward balance - nature hates a TH> vacuum as they say. This natural winding down, coupled with TH> everything I have told you so far, indicates a finite universe TH> which existed in a more energetic and maybe concentrated state TH> from which the winding down process began. And as with all things, TH> this process continues. RM> You read Hawking's "A Brief History Of Time"! Is THAT what you've RM> been doing all this time you were gone from the echo? I am truly Uhh, no, its really common sense in agreement with the observable everyday behavior of the laws of this finite universe. I have read very little of Hawking. RM> impressed, Todd... glad you did it. :) Have you read Learner's "The RM> Big Bang Never Happened"? I really think you should have both sides of RM> the issue examined before choosing one. I mean even if you did read RM> BOTH books that would be equally great because you would have made the RM> effort to see both sides. Do you not agree? I have, a while back, heard very good arguments on both sides. The Big Bang is a side issue that you seem to fixate on arbitrarily. It is logically consistent to conclude that the universe has not always existed, as I have attempted to explain. The observations of the behavior of the universe associated with the Big Bang and its theories are secondary. The Big Bang is only on avenue of trying to explain how the finite universe first came into being. It may be close or maybe not. The Big Bang is man's attempt at trying to hammer out the details of a universe that had a beginning. TH> The universe is finite, yet logically, because existence HAS TH> ALWAYS existed in some level, there remains a force, God, TH> continuum, etc that has always existed, always will, is beyond TH> time, and brought the universe into existence. RM> At first when I saw the "God" word in this last statement I was going RM> to skip reading the rest, BUT I kept myself in check and did anyway. RM> What sort of "continuum" did you have in mind? You have piqued my RM> interest, now. ;) I am creating a ground-up exploration into the nature of existence. At this point, given what we have explored so far in this, there isn't enough yet to conclude there is a God - only a level of existence which has always existed and always will, which brought our necessarily fininte universe into being. BWT, what if I WAS stressing God as the only possibility? If the argument was sound, it would be pretty close minded and unphilosophical and actually quite ignorant to skip over it just because you don't like it. You know? ... "Scotty, beam me up another Blue Wave message." --- * Origin: Nite Lite BBS (1:2410/534) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F1^00008 Date: 01/30/98 From: TODD HENSON Time: 03:25am \/To: RICHARD MEIC (Read 0 times) Subj: Existence exists JM>> Why even propose such a wild, albeit hypothetical, situation. JM>> That's like asking the question: snip RM> Todd, Joe is the last person in FIDO who needs that speech. Perhaps RM> you should develop a tougher skin? ;) By his remark, I would say he did. I also like how you take a petty opportunity to turn needed rebuke into an issue of "toughness". ;) TH> People here have historically shown a similar lack of clarity Joe. RM> Todd, until you actually do read and consider anyone's arguments (and RM> not forget them, like you always do to me), you are in no position to RM> preach to anyone about "lack of clarity". Right back atcha! TH> Many who have passed through these cyber-halls have been so TH> deluded as to think that the laws of reality really do bend TH> according to the whims of the observer. RM> And the above statement is proof enough. I can only think that you RM> are referring to my past statement that "truth is relative to the RM> observer". I had provided enough examples when I stated this to make my I can only think you give yourself too much credit for how much of my thoughts you occupy. Actually, I had forgotten about your "relative" statements. Your haste to take all this personally betrays your bias. RM> point crystal clear to anyone who can read, consider logically, and RM> maintain some semblance of a memory. It is not my fault that you RM> continuously bring up your version, which is clearly wrought from an RM> unfathomably ignorant mind. I wasn't even referring to you! My you do give yourself credit! Where is all this nonsense coming from Richard? IS this how your athiest values outshine my beliefs? By starting a namecalling skirmish about my remarks hich didn't even refer to you in the first place? Please, you really make me want to become an Meic-ian athiest. Please Rich, calm down. TH> At the present, there are TH> more than a few here who are also willfully ignorant. RM> Like yourself, Todd? Really. ;) TH> For this TH> reason, I chose to start from the absolute beginning, an obvious TH> truth which hopefully even the more foolish ones can grasp, TH> thereby allowing more of us to actually find common ground from TH> which to start a philosophical exploration. With some people, such TH> absurd questions as the one I posed are sometimes necessary. RM> I did like your attempt, I have to admit that. It looked okay to me RM> for a start on a topic that is not purely religious. If it can be RM> managed I would like to continue on it,... provided you at least try to RM> consider my statements. Well, if your statements are going to consist of the same kind of pure emotional reactions that caused you to jump on my case twice already, I don't think we'll get along very well. Do you? ... Blue Wave - World Tour - 1998 --- * Origin: Nite Lite BBS (1:2410/534) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F1^00009 Date: 01/30/98 From: JOSEPH VOIGT Time: 08:48pm \/To: TODD HENSON (Read 0 times) Subj: "Existence Exists" Hello Todd, Friday January 30 1998 02:51, Todd Henson said to William Elliot: TH> No, its a logical contradiction. Either it's infinite or its not. How TH> many half pregnant women have you met? How many things only half TH> exist. Schrodinger's cat. TH> What you are proposing ignores common sense, and ignores everything TH> said. Nope. The Uncertainty Principle tells me otherwise. ... If it feels good .... Do It. --- FastEcho 1.46 (reg) * Origin: The Danse Macabre 210-623-1395 San Antonio, Tx (1:387/638) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F1^00010 Date: 01/30/98 From: JOSEPH VOIGT Time: 08:59pm \/To: TODD HENSON (Read 0 times) Subj: Atheist Hello Todd, It might behoove you to actually learn how to spell the word 'atheist' before spewing off about what an atheist should or should not be in your silly infinity arguments. Just so you won't make the same mistake again: It is not spelled 'athiest'. ... Let the rain fall, and fall, and fall. --- FastEcho 1.46 (reg) * Origin: The Danse Macabre 210-623-1395 San Antonio, Tx (1:387/638) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F1^00011 Date: 01/30/98 From: FRANK MASINGILL Time: 09:53pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Death Penalty This is addressed only to the serious thinkers on the echo. I'm sure you have noticed what a dilemma has been posed to many who either oppose or support the death penalty. I am wondering if there ever could be a calm, rational, philosophical dialogue on the subject. Here we now have the embarrassing situation of a serial killer who deliberately sent bombs through the mail intended to blow people away. As of now, he evidently is NOT going to a mental hospital for confinement there and is not going to suffer the death penality but will receive imprisonment for life. Given his penchant or trying to commit suicide that could be a short period of time unless they're careful. At the same time we now have a woman in Texas convicted of a heinous rime and admitting that she did it but asking for clemency because she has undergone a conversion. I'm not taking a position in either of these specific cases. What I AM doing is pointing to the interesting societal attitude that hesitates omewhat to inflict the ultimate "punishment" of the finality of taking of life (which cannot be reversed) but doesn't seem to care much that the murderer (please, let's agree to drop the romantic term "Unabomber") who is male is to have HIS life spared seemingly in deference to a justly bereaved family who love him just as many candidates for the death penalty have loving families. My own personal opinion (FWIW) is that I am against the death penality for many reasons, not the least of which is that it requires society to act with finality in so many instances where we don't really know the guilt or innocence but my attitude is not likely to have much weight one way or the other in what happens in the various jurisdictions. I doubt that anybody would argue that this final penalty is evenly enforced. I don't think the ancients ever solved the problem. There have been numerous ways of approaching it such as "cities of refuge", "islands of ostracism" and others. One thing it has come NOT TO BE and that is swift justice according to speedy trial and execution of penalties. These cases normally drag through years and years of judicial process, often depending on the financial resources of the convicted felon. Just thought I'd pose the question. Serial killers will surely try to negotiate for a position similar to hat of Kazinsky (sp?) in the future and who could blame them. We still await the decision in Texas but the bet that her execution will be stayed for any length of time is not a good one. Sincerely, Frank --- PPoint 2.05 * Origin: Maybe in 5,000 years - frankmas@juno.com (1:396/45.12) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F1^00012 Date: 01/30/98 From: ANDREW CUMMINS Time: 06:04pm \/To: FRANK MASINGILL (Read 0 times) Subj: Race & IQ -=> Quoting Frank Masingill to Andrew Cummins <=- AC> Moron, modern mathematics came from white men. Let's see you name a few AC> far easterners who contributed to mathematics and we'll see if I can't AC> name more white men who made greater contributions. Okay, loser? AC> FM> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... FM> Why shore!! We didn't need that ole Arabian zero or algebra, etc., FM> etc....... You are such a moron! In one sentence you expose dozens of points of your idiocy! Incredible! When one of your comrades claimed modern math came from far easterners, you didn't seem to care. You didn't name anyone, as I challenged. Romans did just fine without a formal zero. Calculus is more impressive than algebra. Arabians are caucasians, that's close enough to white. However, white Europeans gave us "zero" and algebra. It's just that Europe was already using a different numbering system while the rest of the world was nearly completely math ignorant. When base 10 came along, even the genetically inferior races could get into math as they could count on their fingers. Consider, those Africans didn't invent the metric system while us Americans were developing the english system. Or, third world countries didn't develop better phone technology, they just hadn't yet developed a wired phone system so now they have many cell phones. But, sigh, any concept beyond 2+2=4 is probably too tough for you to grasp. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 --- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0066 * Origin: FREEDOM SIGNODE Serving Him and You! (1:284/57)