(December 28, 2021 at 12:06 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:True(December 28, 2021 at 11:35 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Is properly basic to consider physical reality non-contingent? I am okay with that but IMHO that also is an unsupported opinion. I wonder. How would you falsify this physicalist position?
I mean, it’s not any less supported than a non-contingent god. In order for physical reality to be contingent there would have to have been an alternative state of affairs to existence that could have been instead. What is the alternative state of affairs to existence? Nothing? Nothing can’t be an alternative state. By its definition, nothing can’t be. Hart talks about the infinite distance between being and non-being, as though either could potentially be. I don’t see a way around this apparent logical paradox, but I’m open to ideas.
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
![[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=cdn.shopify.com%2Fs%2Ffiles%2F1%2F0630%2F5310%2F3332%2Fproducts%2FCanada_Flag.jpg%3Fv%3D1646203843)
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
