At 3:34 PM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 13:13 -0500, tedd wrote:
> Just because we think, does not prove randomness, nor order, in
nature -- it only proves that we think about it.
Actually, order is proven. The fact that I can re-arrange objects into
an order proves it exists, the accuracy of the ordering may fall into
question, but not that they are ordered. It's random that can't be
proven.
Cheers,
Rob.
No, just because you can "re-arrange objects" to your definition of
order does not mean they are ordered -- unless you are making one of
those "begging the question" arguments (i.e., "I ordered it,
therefore it's ordered").
Instead, I claim that you perceive order, when there is not, other
than in your mind, and that's the point. One might claim that if you
could order things, then they would remain ordered -- but nothing
remains stagnant.
Furthermore, what you claim as ordered will not necessarily be "in
order" by another observer. As such, "order" is an abstract concept
of the mind, nothing else.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
