"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:413c719f.22600721 at netnews.att.net...
[..]
> The only cause which supplies its own proof as first cause is the idea
> of differences and cognates of differences: negation, contradiction,
> not, etc. and that principle compounded in terms of itself. Neither
> Aristotle's prime mover unmoved nor god is proven of itself. Nor are
> evolution and the natural selection of species proven with respect to
> the categories and transitions between the categories.
>> The only thing proven of itself as the source and first cause of
> everything are differences and cognates of differences. And it is
> in terms of these elements that the categories of being are to be
> examined and explained in strict mechanical terms of one another.
If I try to understand this:
[{A} . . . . . . . . . {B}]
\ /
\ /
[Difference]
You say D is what causes [{A}...{B}] to exist?
What about the nature of A, B and D?
If {A} and {B} are to be mechanised in terms of one another, then isn't
[Difference] just another word for known mechanical terms that describe A-B
relationships? In other words, aren't [Difference] and known A-B mechanics
(in physics for instance) the *same*?
[{A} . . . . . . . . . {B}]
\ /
\ /
[known 101 spatio-temporal mechanics]
I would not yet dare to place any "first cause" anywhere in the two above
models; chicken/egg, indivisibility, etc. It appears that from any
epistemological model we can cut and paste any item anywhere in trying to
construct an ontology we hope to be correct - but the result appears more
like "mechanising knowledge", i.e. a simulation we never are sure of what
exactly is simulated.
--
Cheers, JPL
http://home.tiscali.nl/boynalechmipo/
On consciousness: experiential bubbles,
solipsism, mind-brain duality, the binding problem,
the hard problem and artificial consciousness.
