Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.logic > #136832 > unrolled thread

rolling dice is not random?

Back to article view | Back to sci.logic

Contents

  rolling dice is not random? Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2015-10-21 17:47 -0400
    Re: rolling dice is not random? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-21 22:22 +0000
      Re: rolling dice is not random? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 17:37 -0500
        Re: rolling dice is not random? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-21 22:54 +0000
    Re: rolling dice is not random? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-10-22 09:45 +1100
      Re: rolling dice is not random? Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2015-10-21 20:12 -0400
        Re: rolling dice is not random? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-10-22 12:04 +1100
          Re: rolling dice is not random? Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2015-10-21 22:21 -0400
            Re: "Life" is virtual, not real. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-10-22 18:56 +1100
              Re: "Life" is virtual, not real. "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2015-10-22 03:09 -0700
              Re: "Life" is virtual, not real. Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2015-10-22 16:36 -0400
                Re: "Life" is virtual, not real. Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 23:49 -0400
              Re: The Ensemble Interpretation. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-10-23 11:32 +1100
                Re: The Ensemble Interpretation. Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2015-10-22 20:40 -0400
                  Re: The Ensemble Interpretation. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-10-23 11:50 +1100
            Re: "Life" is virtual, not real. The BORG <borg@future.com> - 2015-10-24 15:27 +0100
              Re: "Life" is virtual, not real. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-10-25 13:54 +1100
    Re: rolling dice is not random? bilgat@m.nu - 2015-10-21 18:46 -0500
      Re: rolling dice is not random? Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2015-10-21 20:13 -0400
    Re: rolling dice is not random? Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2015-10-21 22:48 -0400
      Re: rolling dice is not random? John Ritson <j.ritson@hotmail.co.uk> - 2015-10-22 09:57 +0100
        Re: rolling dice is not random? Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2015-10-22 16:32 -0400
          Re: rolling dice is not random? John Ritson <j.ritson@hotmail.co.uk> - 2015-10-22 22:53 +0100
            Re: rolling dice is not random? Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2015-10-22 19:36 -0400
              Re: rolling dice is not random? John Ritson <j.ritson@hotmail.co.uk> - 2015-10-23 10:26 +0100
                Re: rolling dice is not random? "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam.nospam.nospam@sci.research.careers.i.have.shorter.stature.can.i.grow.taller> - 2015-10-24 09:56 +0000
    Re: rolling dice is not random? Hans Wussel <hanswussel@openmailbox.org> - 2015-10-22 19:40 +0200
      Re: rolling dice is not random? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 12:51 -0700
      Re: rolling dice is not random? Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2015-10-22 16:38 -0400

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#136832 — rolling dice is not random?

assuming determinism means nothing is random, everything is bounded by 
cause and effect

to roll dice they start in a particular position in the hand, they exit 
the hand in a position, their path to the environment to the table 
bounds them to cause and effect physics, their landing and final roll on 
the table is bound by the environmental cause and effect physics

someone ought to construct a physical dice rolling/receiving apparatus 
to prove the point, rolling dice is too often used as an excuse for 
random existence

the only empirical evidence of randomness in quantum physics is the 
Casimir Effect, which does not create a true vacuum for virtual 
particles, zero-point energy, etc. to be observed

things like Faraday Cages aren't true vacuums
even the apparatus introduces something else into a vacuum
things like neutrinos can enter the apparatus and attempted vacuum
probably more stuff from more scholarly people

treating something as random, or assuming it is effectively random, does 
not make it random, secondly does not make randomness part of determinism

before you can address that something is random, you have to address 
whether random exists

by deduction, if random exists then random does whatever

there is no inductive reasoning, if something appears random apply 
statistically designed experiments with all the appropriate control 
variables to something indescribable by statistics until you agree that 
randomness cannot be described statistically or out of stubbornness 
devote your life to the cause

note, all assumes logic, if illogic exists then random may do many 
things, and many things may do many things


-- 
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#136833

In sci.physics Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> wrote:
> assuming determinism means nothing is random, everything is bounded by 
> cause and effect
> 
> to roll dice they start in a particular position in the hand, they exit 
> the hand in a position, their path to the environment to the table 
> bounds them to cause and effect physics, their landing and final roll on 
> the table is bound by the environmental cause and effect physics
> 
> someone ought to construct a physical dice rolling/receiving apparatus 
> to prove the point, rolling dice is too often used as an excuse for 
> random existence

Or get a bunch of people to try to throw dice the same way every time.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#136834

On 10/21/15 5:22 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>> assuming determinism means nothing is random, everything is bounded by
>> cause and effect
>>
>> to roll dice they start in a particular position in the hand, they exit
>> the hand in a position, their path to the environment to the table
>> bounds them to cause and effect physics, their landing and final roll on
>> the table is bound by the environmental cause and effect physics
>>
>> someone ought to construct a physical dice rolling/receiving apparatus
>> to prove the point, rolling dice is too often used as an excuse for
>> random existence
>
> Or get a bunch of people to try to throw dice the same way every time.
>
>

   Try not to be so stoooopid, jimp.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#136836

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/21/15 5:22 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>>> assuming determinism means nothing is random, everything is bounded by
>>> cause and effect
>>>
>>> to roll dice they start in a particular position in the hand, they exit
>>> the hand in a position, their path to the environment to the table
>>> bounds them to cause and effect physics, their landing and final roll on
>>> the table is bound by the environmental cause and effect physics
>>>
>>> someone ought to construct a physical dice rolling/receiving apparatus
>>> to prove the point, rolling dice is too often used as an excuse for
>>> random existence
>>
>> Or get a bunch of people to try to throw dice the same way every time.
>>
>>
> 
>   Try not to be so stoooopid, jimp.
 
OK, spamming shit head, explain in your own words what would be stupid
about a statistical study of people attempting to throw dice the same
way time and again.

Do you, spamming shit head, think humans are capable or incapable of
sufficient muscle control to make throwing dice non-random?

Here's your chance to actually DISCUSS something for once instead
of just copying the words of others, spamming shit head.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#136835

On 22/10/2015 8:47 AM, Dale wrote:
> assuming determinism means nothing is random, everything is bounded by
> cause and effect

Probably - but who is assuming determinism?

What point are you actually trying to make here?

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#136838

On 10/21/2015 06:45 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 22/10/2015 8:47 AM, Dale wrote:
>> assuming determinism means nothing is random, everything is bounded by
>> cause and effect
>
> Probably - but who is assuming determinism?
>
> What point are you actually trying to make here?
>
> Sylvia.

maybe mutations can't be random

something random is untestable and not theory, not deductive because it 
has no cause or link to the "whole" therefore not even hypothesis

not to say it doesn't happen, just to say that there are broader 
explanations that are put aside when responding with some FAQs to a 
creationist

for instance

a) God(s) did it
b) no, random mutations filtered by natural selection did it

there are many studies I have seen on talk.origins that attempt to 
explain genetic variation, they would take a lot of studying for me, but 
they aren't random, they fit with determinism

seems like there is a two tier set of FAQs for science, too bad the 
dissemination isn't as good as it could be

-- 
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#136840

On 22/10/2015 11:12 AM, Dale wrote:
> On 10/21/2015 06:45 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 22/10/2015 8:47 AM, Dale wrote:
>>> assuming determinism means nothing is random, everything is bounded by
>>> cause and effect
>>
>> Probably - but who is assuming determinism?
>>
>> What point are you actually trying to make here?
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> maybe mutations can't be random

Every indication we have is that quantum mechanical processes are 
random. That leaks into evolution by such processes as:

a) Cosmic rays arriving at random and impacting DNA molecules.

b) Radioactive decay in the environment and tissues surrounding DNA 
molecules randomly emitting particles that interact with DNA.

c) Radioactive decay within DNA when it happens to contain an unstable 
isotope of an atom.

d) Transcription errors when the wrong chemical reaction occurs because, 
although it is unlikely, it is not impossible.

And who knows how many others.

Given the clear evidence that DNA dictates the form of a creature, it's 
inevitable that these random changes to the DNA will cause mutations, 
and it's equally inevitable that some of these mutations will be beneficial.

To bring God into the picture, you have to have Him either controlling 
the quantum mechanical processes, or actively removing the beneficial 
mutations in favour of specific changes He wants. That's a stretch, 
given that it seems clear that things would happen the way they are even 
in the absence of His intervention.

Sylvia

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#136844

On 10/21/2015 09:04 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 22/10/2015 11:12 AM, Dale wrote:
>> On 10/21/2015 06:45 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 22/10/2015 8:47 AM, Dale wrote:
>>>> assuming determinism means nothing is random, everything is bounded by
>>>> cause and effect
>>>
>>> Probably - but who is assuming determinism?
>>>
>>> What point are you actually trying to make here?
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> maybe mutations can't be random
>
> Every indication we have is that quantum mechanical processes are
> random. That leaks into evolution by such processes as:
>
> a) Cosmic rays arriving at random and impacting DNA molecules.
>
> b) Radioactive decay in the environment and tissues surrounding DNA
> molecules randomly emitting particles that interact with DNA.
>
> c) Radioactive decay within DNA when it happens to contain an unstable
> isotope of an atom.
>
> d) Transcription errors when the wrong chemical reaction occurs because,
> although it is unlikely, it is not impossible.
>
> And who knows how many others.
>
> Given the clear evidence that DNA dictates the form of a creature, it's
> inevitable that these random changes to the DNA will cause mutations,
> and it's equally inevitable that some of these mutations will be
> beneficial.
>
> To bring God into the picture, you have to have Him either controlling
> the quantum mechanical processes, or actively removing the beneficial
> mutations in favour of specific changes He wants. That's a stretch,
> given that it seems clear that things would happen the way they are even
> in the absence of His intervention.
>
> Sylvia
>
>

lots of good stuff, I would have to study to reply well

I'll resort to philosophy and put the full reply on the back-burner for 
a short while

you can't put randomness in determinism, unless time is a continuum and 
random things always existed and need no cause, random things have no cause

even cyclical debates would have to attribute past tense of random 
nature to present, or they would fall into a cycle of last effect being 
first cause and random objects have no cause

finite time binds the end to the beginning and a random object cannot be 
bound to a beginning because it has no cause

it may be a question as to whether the reader is a determinist, your 
assertions of random nature fall into the non-determinist category 
except for the continuum time case

I at least believe in the psychological/sociological/psychiatric value 
of what may just be metaphor/parable/etc. of spirituality, its faith, I 
know it, but isn't empiricism the same? especially with no determinism? 
if there are a bunch of random things happening there is nothing to say 
the Sun won't rise tomorrow as it did today

-- 
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#136856 — Re: "Life" is virtual, not real.

On 22/10/2015 5:47 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> "Randomness" is ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.

In the field of quantum mechanics there are good reasons to think that 
the randomness is inherent, and that it is not lack of knowledge that 
prevents us from knowing what will happen and when.

That is, there is no underlying process about which we could in 
principle have knowledge, and thereby be able to look behind the randomness.

Since quantum randomness affects the world we perceive, that means that 
at least some of the randomness we see in the world is not just a matter 
of ignorance.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#136859 — Re: "Life" is virtual, not real.

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message news:d8rj5jFgptdU1@mid.individual.net...

> Since quantum randomness affects the world we perceive,
> that means that at least some of the randomness we see in
> the world is not just a matter of ignorance.
>
> Sylvia.

"Useful as it is under everyday circumstances to say
that the world exists "out there" independent of us,
that view cannot longer be upheld. There is a strange
sense in which this is a "participatory universe."
                                         ~ John Wheeler, physicist

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#136888 — Re: "Life" is virtual, not real.

On 10/22/2015 03:56 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 22/10/2015 5:47 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>> "Randomness" is ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.
>
> In the field of quantum mechanics there are good reasons to think that
> the randomness is inherent, and that it is not lack of knowledge that
> prevents us from knowing what will happen and when.
>
> That is, there is no underlying process about which we could in
> principle have knowledge, and thereby be able to look behind the
> randomness.
>
> Since quantum randomness affects the world we perceive, that means that
> at least some of the randomness we see in the world is not just a matter
> of ignorance.
>
> Sylvia.
>

too often the term random is used

for instance, is zero-point energy testable? no, you would have to 
observe it and introducing yourself or a Casimir apparatus inot the 
environment cancels out the zero

quantum physics went led cosmology into philosophy when there was no 
answer to Schroedinger's Cat besides his point, maybe consciousness is a 
5th dimension

-- 
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#136907 — Re: "Life" is virtual, not real.

Le 2015-10-22 16:36, Dale a écrit :
> On 10/22/2015 03:56 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 22/10/2015 5:47 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>>> "Randomness" is ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.
>>
>> In the field of quantum mechanics there are good reasons to think that
>> the randomness is inherent, and that it is not lack of knowledge that
>> prevents us from knowing what will happen and when.
>>
>> That is, there is no underlying process about which we could in
>> principle have knowledge, and thereby be able to look behind the
>> randomness.
>>
>> Since quantum randomness affects the world we perceive, that means that
>> at least some of the randomness we see in the world is not just a matter
>> of ignorance.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>>
>
> too often the term random is used
>
> for instance, is zero-point energy testable? no, you would have to
> observe it and introducing yourself or a Casimir apparatus inot the
> environment cancels out the zero
>
> quantum physics went led cosmology into philosophy when there was no
> answer to Schroedinger's Cat besides his point, maybe consciousness is a
> 5th dimension

Eat well. Go to church. Love you family and friends.

Leave the rest the fuck alone.



-- 
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#136895 — Re: The Ensemble Interpretation.

On 22/10/2015 8:59 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> Sylvia_Else wrote: > there is no underlying process about which we
> could, > in principle, have knowledge, and thereby be able to > look
> behind the randomness [of quantum mechanics]. Ignorance is ignorance,
> Sylvia, no matter if the truth is attainable or not.

There's a distinction between a truth that exists, but is not 
discoverable, and a truth that is simply non-existent. Applying the 
unqualified word "ignorance" in the latter case is rather unhelpful.

For example, we do not know the highest prime number. This is not a case 
of ignorance - the reason we do not know it is that there is no such thing.

This seems to be case with quantum mechanics. Our inability to predict 
the outcome of a quantum interaction is not due to our failing to know 
something about the internal state of the particles involved, but arises 
because there is nothing there to know. The result is random, and that's 
all that can be said about it.

Sylvia

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#136898 — Re: The Ensemble Interpretation.

On 10/22/2015 08:32 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 22/10/2015 8:59 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>> Sylvia_Else wrote: > there is no underlying process about which we
>> could, > in principle, have knowledge, and thereby be able to > look
>> behind the randomness [of quantum mechanics]. Ignorance is ignorance,
>> Sylvia, no matter if the truth is attainable or not.
>
> There's a distinction between a truth that exists, but is not
> discoverable, and a truth that is simply non-existent. Applying the
> unqualified word "ignorance" in the latter case is rather unhelpful.
>
> For example, we do not know the highest prime number. This is not a case
> of ignorance - the reason we do not know it is that there is no such thing.


aren't the prime numbers a set whose cardinality is countable?




>
> This seems to be case with quantum mechanics. Our inability to predict
> the outcome of a quantum interaction is not due to our failing to know
> something about the internal state of the particles involved, but arises
> because there is nothing there to know. The result is random, and that's
> all that can be said about it.

not knowing doesn't equate with a definition?



>
> Sylvia
>


-- 
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#136899 — Re: The Ensemble Interpretation.

On 23/10/2015 11:40 AM, Dale wrote:
> On 10/22/2015 08:32 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 22/10/2015 8:59 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>>> Sylvia_Else wrote: > there is no underlying process about which we
>>> could, > in principle, have knowledge, and thereby be able to > look
>>> behind the randomness [of quantum mechanics]. Ignorance is ignorance,
>>> Sylvia, no matter if the truth is attainable or not.
>>
>> There's a distinction between a truth that exists, but is not
>> discoverable, and a truth that is simply non-existent. Applying the
>> unqualified word "ignorance" in the latter case is rather unhelpful.
>>
>> For example, we do not know the highest prime number. This is not a case
>> of ignorance - the reason we do not know it is that there is no such
>> thing.
>
>
> aren't the prime numbers a set whose cardinality is countable?

Yes, since they're a subset of the natural numbers, which are countable 
by definition.

But being countable doesn't mean finite. That there is no highest prime 
number was proved over two millennia ago (by Euclid, who was a pretty 
bright lad).

> not knowing doesn't equate with a definition?

If by that you mean that not knowing is the definition of "ignorant". I 
wouldn't agree. I would consider it limited to those situations where 
the ignorant person could, at least in principle, otherwise know the 
thing they're ignorant of.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#137011 — Re: "Life" is virtual, not real.

There is nothing random in the Univierse.

Only atheists believe in randomness.


On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 23:47:27 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:

>  
>"Randomness" is ignorance, nothing more, nothing less. 
>
>To us, nature seems semi-random; 
>some things are better known, others less so. 
>
>Fact is:  What we want (water, air, sex, etc.) 
>has been programmed into us -- we're robots. 
>
>Darwin showed how we're related to monkeys; 
>Einstein showed how "life" is virtual, not real. 
>  "Randomness" is ignorance, nothing more, nothing less. To us, nature seems semi-random; some things are better known, others less so. Fact is: What we want (water, air, sex, etc.) has been programmed into us -- we're robots. Darwin showed how we're related to monkeys; Einstein showed how "life" is virtual, not real. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#137056 — Re: "Life" is virtual, not real.

On 25/10/2015 1:27 AM, The BORG wrote:
>
> There is nothing random in the Univierse.
>
> Only atheists believe in randomness.

That seems somewhat plausible, but I think you need to expand a bit on 
your reasoning.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#136837

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 17:47:50 -0400, Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> wrote:


actually rolling dice is not a true random. since there is a limited
number of results that can be obtained and some of the results can be
obtained in more than one combination

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#136839

On 10/21/2015 07:46 PM, bilgat@m.nu wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 17:47:50 -0400, Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>
>
> actually rolling dice is not a true random. since there is a limited
> number of results that can be obtained and some of the results can be
> obtained in more than one combination
>

neither is a random seed generation

-- 
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#136847

On 10/21/2015 08:52 PM, nature bats last wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 2:47:53 PM UTC-7, Dale wrote:
>> assuming determinism means nothing is random, everything is bounded by
>> cause and effect
>>
>> to roll dice they start in a particular position in the hand, they exit
>> the hand in a position, their path to the environment to the table
>> bounds them to cause and effect physics, their landing and final roll on
>> the table is bound by the environmental cause and effect physics
>>
>> someone ought to construct a physical dice rolling/receiving apparatus
>> to prove the point, rolling dice is too often used as an excuse for
>> random existence
>>
>
> .
> .> the only empirical evidence of randomness in quantum physics is the
> .> Casimir Effect.
>
> Radioactive decay.



   Which slit a particle goes  through
> in the double slit experiment.  The Schroedinger equation,
> which gives only probabilities, not predictions.  Quantum
> physics if full of examples of randomness.  I'm afraid I'm not seeing
> how the Casimir effect is particularly an example.
>
> .> which does not create a true vacuum for virtual
> .> particles, zero-point energy, etc. to be observed
>
> .> things like Faraday Cages aren't true vacuums
>
> Faraday cages aren't supposed to be any kind of vacuum.
> Instead they're metal containers which intercept incoming
> radiation, generally lower frequency radiation, and shunt it
> off to ground.  Generally not solid but mesh, as the only
> requirement is that the holes be small enough to block
> wavelengths above a given frequency.
>
>
>> even the apparatus introduces something else into a vacuum
>> things like neutrinos can enter the apparatus and attempted vacuum
>> probably more stuff from more scholarly people
>>
>> treating something as random, or assuming it is effectively random, does
>> not make it random, secondly does not make randomness part of determinism
>>
>> before you can address that something is random, you have to address
>> whether random exists
>>
>> by deduction, if random exists then random does whatever
>>
>
> ,> there is no inductive reasoning, if something appears random apply
> ,> statistically designed experiments with all the appropriate control
> ,> variables to something indescribable by statistics until you agree that
> ,> randomness cannot be described statistically or out of stubbornness
> ,> devote your life to the cause
>
> That sort of thing has been done with radioactive decay.  In fact
> there are true random number generators based on radioactive
> decay.  Heck, they're even online any more.  Here's one:
>
>      https://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/
>
>> note, all assumes logic, if illogic exists then random may do many
>> things, and many things may do many things
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dale
>> http://www.dalekelly.org


I'll give a brief reply now and get back to you

choose one of the two, not both, randomness or determinism,

unless time is a continuum and random things need no cause to exist, 
finite time binds the end to the beginning and random things have no 
beginning/cause, cyclical time is sort of like finite because its last 
effect is the first cause and no cause even a first can be the cause of 
something random

I'm not a determinist, at least the concept of free will is around, I 
might not have it, but a Supreme Being would, are concepts part of the 
set of things that exist and what role do concepts play? if they only 
play into valuable metaphors/parables why not be light on such?

-- 
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.logic

csiph-web