Posted by Neredbojias on 04/10/06 03:49

To further the education of mankind, dorayme
<doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> declaimed:

> 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.

-Er, no, just the opposite.

> The absence of money in your pocket can get you into real trouble
> on a bus when the conductor comes to collect the fare.

Over here you have to pay first.

> 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.

Well, money exists; you (-I?) just don't have any.

> 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.

It's not a bad bet when the purse accumulates to a level beyond the break-
even ratio of the odds.

--
Neredbojias
Infinity can have limits.

[Back to original message]