It seems like you're simply ignoring the facts of what Aristotle wrote, to make an unsupported assertion. If you ask me, "why did you make that hammer...
As I said before, I find your questions very vague and irrelevant. You asked me one question, I replied, and now you go off in a completely different ...
"End" in this sense means "the thing one seeks to attain". Don't jump ahead of yourself, first obtain a strong grasp of what final cause really means,...
Try Google, it's very helpful, but let me try, maybe I can describe it. The Hamiltonian operator describes a system in terms of the energy of all the ...
Right, "to drive nails" is the final cause. Intent is implicit in the phrase "to...". "I intend to...". So we haven't made a hammer to desire to drive...
I must admit, I don't really understand what you are asking me. I've had that problem with your posts in the past. If I can't somehow relate what you'...
You really should read Aristotle because I can see that you completely misunderstand the nature of final cause. Here's what he says, Physics 194b: " '...
Did you not read "the desired 'end'"? The final cause of the hammer is not the act of driving nails, it is the desire to drive nails. If you really th...
Yes, you can use the magic of mathematics to turn possibilities into realities if you like, but I think that if the magician is convinced my the magic...
I don't agree. I think you misunderstand "final cause". It is contradictory to think that the cause of something is posterior in time to that thing. T...
The final cause of the hammer is your intent to drive nails. How could you actually driving nails, be the cause of the hammer? The hammer already exis...
As I understand final cause, it always precedes the thing brought about, as the intent to bring that thing about. I don't understand what you mean by ...
I told you this already, the energy of the system is expressed as probable locations of particles. There is an amount of energy introduced into the sy...
I don't think final cause is subsequent to the effect. "Final cause" refers to the intent which brings about the existence of the object. Otherwise yo...
Didn't Wittgenstein say the very same thing? But he wasted a lot more time saying it. I guess that's the point, "proving it" is a waste of time. I gue...
Yes, I believe there is an innate tendency in living creatures to look out for oneself. It extends to "look out for one's family", as is evident in ma...
As far as I know, there is no type of cause other than temporal. Cause is a temporal concept, the cause is necessarily prior (temporally) to the effec...
The notion of "substance" is really not at all clear in Aristotle, and I'd say non-existent in Plato. In his logic, The Categories, I believe, Aristot...
OK, so we're in agreement here. As I said, it is necessary that the object comes into existence as the object which it is. Otherwise, "it would be pos...
The Hamiltonian operator is an integral part of the Schrodinger equation. There is no Schrodinger equation without it. It represents all the energy wi...
The Schrodinger equation employs a Hamiltonian operator which is a description of particles within a system. According to Wikipedia: "Its spectrum is ...
All this time, I thought we were discussing the results of that original argument I presented. Now I see that you've totally forgotten it. Here it is....
The way I see it, we perceive objects. We have developed the concepts of space and time to assist us in understanding the existence of these objects. ...
Obviously, I included the conclusion of the earlier argument, which demonstrated that the haecceity of the object is prior to the physical presence of...
I don't think you describe this correctly. I believe that the Schrodinger equation is an interpretation of interference effects, which expresses the p...
This is where we disagree. I think that the haecceity, which belongs to the material object, and is specific to that particular object pre-exists the ...
Call it what you like, "idea" of the object, "essence" of the object, "image" of the object, "what" the object is, it's all the same thing, just diffe...
The interference effects are phenomenal. The phenomenon is described as possibilities. So the possibilities are epistemic. The possibilities are the e...
No, it's clearly not what I am saying, it's just an example of how it is not nonsense to talk about a thing prior to that thing's existence. In order ...
I don't believe this to be unintelligible, it's a matter of habituation. I disagree with this. If a potential act appears good to you, and you can't s...
It's a contradictory notion that all possible worlds are actual. In my understanding of possibilities, any possibility must be actualized before it ca...
I don't see any difference there. What you seem to be stuck on, is the fact that we can talk about properties which an object will have, prior to the ...
Yes, that's exactly it. Kasparov is capable of deceiving the computer, the computer is not capable of deceiving Kasparov. If there is nothing to make ...
Correct, but the object's haecceity exists at T1. Now, you've told me that this makes no sense to you, the possibility that the haecceity of the objec...
The haecceity doesn't come into existence as an object, the object comes into existence having a haecceity. What we are referring to is the object's h...
I was responding to this: Along with your examples, what is being described here is deception, acting intelligently in a way so as the actions appear ...
You describe the act as "intelligent". Therefore it is inherently intelligible, even if it is only intelligible to the one carrying out the act. To pr...
OK, so you're saying that the haecceity is dynamic structures/relations of matter. There's one peculiar problem with this perspective. Matter only exi...
Right, we agree that there is no object to have haecceity prior to that object ___ing. Now, what necessitates your claim that the haecceity which the ...
No! (1) is the existence of the object., the object with essence, or as you say "haecceity". Prior to the existence of the object (object + haecceity)...
What you describe here is nothing more than deception, and we should all be very wary of any claim that deception is good. Any time we act intelligent...
When your examples fail to exemplify what they are intended to make example of, then it's time to reassess that principle which the example was meant ...
This is a good example, the model follows from the success of prediction. So let's say that the successful predictions lead to a Many Worlds model. No...
Sure, if I am referring to the same time, that would be a contradicton, but I'm not. That's the whole point of the argument. It was stated in the argu...
Well you sure haven't succeeded. Where's the contradiction? You clearly refer to "an object with an essence". Do you, or do you not agree that the ess...
Ok. now you introduce a thing called language, and language is related to ideas and universals, as well as the experiences of individuals. But languag...
Comments