geye1234

35 ms·

1. 211.▲
   by geye1234 2y ago

   Nothing to do with the upcoming frequent blackouts that are widely predicted (and the gaps in power that are becoming more common and were unheard-of 20 years ago).
2. 212.▲
   by geye1234 3y ago

   I'm sorry, I don't have time to do this at this point. I enjoyed our conversation and you made me think through my positions, which is always good. I genuinely wish you well :)
3. 213.▲
   by geye1234 3y ago

   > Business may be competitive, but there are rules and it is not war. To Eddie, business was not only war, but war with the only rules being do not get caught if you can and make all the money you can. And trust no one. Eh, what? Don&#x2
4. 214.▲
   by geye1234 3y ago

   This is only a partial respnse, I will try to finish my response asap. So I wasn't intending anything like a defence of God's existence. As I said: >> To be clear, I am not making a full case for God's existence here;
5. 215.▲
   by geye1234 3y ago

   Thanks, will get back in couple more days.
6. 216.▲
   by geye1234 3y ago

   EDIT: I do not think a brute fact actually applies a contradiction. I was getting ahead of myself. Nonetheless, I think that, if you say one thing can happen without a reason (brute facts), you are thereby forced to say anything can happen
7. 217.▲
   by geye1234 3y ago

   > Actually, can you explain more why you think P is not implying N? P does not imply N because there is no logical connection between the two. As stated, P vs !P and M vs N have no bearing on one-another. Let's grant that N is true
8. 218.▲
   by geye1234 3y ago

   Thanks. I'll wait for your full reply, but very briefly: My position is that the existence/non-existence of regular laws, and the personality/impersonality of the FC, have nothing to do with one another. As I stated earlier
9. 219.▲
   by geye1234 3y ago

   Is the history of the Enlightenment's link with eastern concepts documented anywhere? Clearly Hume uses eastern concepts ("I" am just a bundle of thoughts; causality is just a projection; etc). And the anti-Aristotelianism of
10. 220.▲
    by geye1234 3y ago

    To briefly summarise what I wrote yesterday: Let P be "observation shows us that the universe 'unfolds' predictably" Let Q be "the FC lacks free will" You are claiming that P implies Q, and !P implies (or at le
11. 221.▲
    by geye1234 3y ago

    I think the contradiction is as follows: In the first paragraph, the ruleset is distinct from the FC; the FC simply actualizes the ruleset. It makes the theoretical history an actual history. In the second paragraph, the ruleset is the FC
12. 222.▲
    by geye1234 3y ago

    I'm not sure yet. It's too much brain-load to make hypothetical decisions. I'd be more cautious and keep a close eye on outbreak locations I think. Looks like, at current rates, this will be a better year (fewer outbreaks) th
13. 223.▲
    by geye1234 3y ago

    We have a baby too young to get MMR, and several older children who are up-to-date. The older kids hang out with quite a few unvaccinated people. Can the vaccinated children act as asymptomatic carriers, and bring measles home to the baby?
14. 224.▲
    by geye1234 3y ago

    Ok, I'm going to try and put your argument in my own words, since I have been so eager to make my own points that I have probably been (inadvertently) attacking a straw-man at times. Please let me know if the following is accurate: The
15. 225.▲
    by geye1234 3y ago

    Again, it will be 2-3 more days before I can reply. Thank you!
16. 226.▲
    by geye1234 3y ago

    Ok. The three paragraphs beginning "Let me put it this way" are very clear, thank you. And I see that my previous comment was basically me repeating my assertions without further explanation, for which I apologise. So to summarize
17. 227.▲
    by geye1234 3y ago

    I agree that 2+2=4 and God cannot change that. It cannot possibly be otherwise, given what 2 is, what 4 is and what addition is. But the physical laws of the universe are not like that. They might have been otherwise. Not only that, but the
18. 228.▲
    by geye1234 3y ago

    Will be a couple more days before I have time to reply, thanks for your patience.
19. 229.▲
    by geye1234 3y ago

    > Ah sorry I didn't mean to imply an association I should have read your point more charitably, my bad :) > This is perhaps true for metaphysical existence, but the ontological existence of a lion and the non-existence of an unic
20. 230.▲
    by geye1234 3y ago

    That's not what it says at all. It's using the glass-table-floor-earth picture as an aid to understanding, to illustrate the difference between a linear series and a hierarchical series. It is separate from the actual argument, wh
21. 231.▲
    by geye1234 3y ago

    Yeah I agree it's not entirely laws. Western countries (in their public cultures) treat money as the supreme good in life, so predictably almost everyone is miserable. Many people hide from their misery by checking out. So there's
22. 232.▲
    by geye1234 3y ago

    The western approach to drugs shows he's correct. South Korea and Japan also don't have a drug problem, because they have strict laws and enforce them .
23. 233.▲
    by geye1234 3y ago

    > Maybe you at least agree that atheism/science is compatible with iGod in this sense I note the equation of atheism and science but make no further comment :-) >The book's defense of this sense of free will, where God is fr
24. 234.▲
    by geye1234 3y ago

    I have also heard that the barbarian kings of the fifth century onwards considered themselves, technically, vassals of the Emperor in Constantinople. And that this continued until Charlemagne. Unfortunately I don't remember the source
25. 235.▲
    by geye1234 3y ago

    Thanks for the response. It will likely be a few days before I get a chance to reply.
26. 236.▲
    by geye1234 3y ago

    Much depends on the sense in which we take the term 'science'. Does it mean 'rationally-held knowledge of any sort', or does it mean 'knowledge derived from physics, chemistry, geology, biology and other material th
27. 237.▲
    by geye1234 3y ago

    So to give a bit more of an answer to this, and having not heard your thoughts on pp.205-229, which discuss this issue: First, I don't think "Theory of Everything" is a good phrase for what you're trying to get at. Any t
28. 238.▲
    by geye1234 3y ago

    I'm replying a bit late to this... but what you say is true in both cases. Ownership doesn't entail doing whatever you like. It's the same with many things. You may own a mortgage-free house, but you still need to pay propert
29. 239.▲
    by geye1234 3y ago

    But again, "Bob's labor" is purely notional. It doesn't exist. I can't have a claim to it as a free-floating entity independent of actually-existing things. If I have a claim on Microsoft's future revenues, thi
30. 240.▲
    by geye1234 3y ago

    Thanks for the response and taking the time to follow my recommendation. I'm at work so need to be brief, but I assume you read the discussion of the five qualities you list as personal, on pp.205-229. What did you think were the weakn