Paul Victor Birke
nonlinear at rogers.com
Sat Sep 11 08:36:10 EST 2004
Is not one of the >>theories of time<< that in fact everything exists
in some kind of >>now<<. In the >>now<< mix of everything you could
theorectically have the negation I suppose.
Alex Green wrote:
> lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<4141f007.920566 at netnews.att.net>...
>>On 9 Sep 2004 15:14:21 -0700, dralexgreen at yahoo.co.uk (Alex Green) in
>>>lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<41406d36.55578664 at netnews.att.net>...
>>>>On 9 Sep 2004 04:39:35 -0700, dralexgreen at yahoo.co.uk (Alex Green) in
>>[. . .]
>>>>>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