First Causes

Alex Green dralexgreen at
Sat Sep 11 05:58:32 EST 2004

lesterDELzick at (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<4141f007.920566 at>...
> On 9 Sep 2004 15:14:21 -0700, dralexgreen at (Alex Green) in
> wrote:
> >lesterDELzick at (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<41406d36.55578664 at>...
> >> On 9 Sep 2004 04:39:35 -0700, dralexgreen at (Alex Green) in
> >> wrote:
> [. . .]
> >> >Could there be differences without these things? If so, how?
> >> 
> >> Could there be space and time without differences? No.
> >
> >Please explain. Are you using the term 'differences' to mean the
> >presence of more than one thing or the detection of more than one
> >thing? If the latter then the detection would involve more than one
> >thing so many things come before 'difference'. If the former then you
> >have widened the term 'difference' so far that it just means 'things'.
> We have a significant problem here. If you're going to arbitrarily
> snip relevant comments, there is nothing to discuss. If you want
> answers to questions, please extend me the courtesy of addressing
> all points I submit for consideration of the issue. I use the term
> difference in the sense of contradiction, negation, or not.

My apologies, on some moderated groups they will not allow
contributions without the removal of items that are not addressed in
the current post.

How could a negation occur as a 'first cause'? Suppose a thing
occurred as a first ever thing, if this thing was a 'not thing' it
would not have occurred. Can you explain how negation could be the
first cause?

Best Wishes

Alex Green

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list