|
|
Posted by dorayme on 04/10/06 02:09
In article <Xns979FEA2A9932Dhttpwwwneredbojiasco@208.49.80.251>,
Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
wrote:
> Some philosopher or other stated that if something _could_
> affect reality (potentially), it existed.
If something exists that can have a causal effect then,
naturally, it exists. However, if you are admiring some
philosopher for suggesting that something that does not exist can
have a causal effect, you better be careful.
The absence of money in your pocket can get you into real trouble
on a bus when the conductor comes to collect the fare.
Its non-existence, however, is not really having a causal effect.
There is no money to do this. What is having an effect is your
failure to pay the conductor. That failure is plain to see.
Nothing non-existent or potential about that.
On the other hand you might want to say that the mere possibility
of winning the lottery is cause for you to buy a ticket. After
the draw, you don't win but you might have. The potentiality had
a causal effect. But you need to be careful before swallowing
this whole: what caused you to buy the ticket may just have been
you thinking (rightly) that you could have won. You thinking this
is a brain process that exists and can obviously have effects.
This is quite different to the mere possibility causing things.
Remember, smart people tend not to buys lottery tickets, it is a
bad bet.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|