Dear Alex
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.
Paul (Engineer)
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
>>comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>>>>>>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
>>>>comp.ai.philosophy 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
