Re: Debunking simplistic physicalism

On Sep 21, 12:16 am, Neil W Rickert <rickert...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
casey <jgkjca...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Of course, that's one of the problems. =A0It is a very loose concept
and probably undefinable.
A Universe that continously changes state with a single valued
transformation.

That's fine as an appeal to the intuition, but it isn't a definition.
When you examine it closely, you recognize that it doesn't actually
mean anything.

It means something to me. You can only define things in those
terms. If something acts undetermistically there is nothing you
can say about it except it is acting in a random fashion.

JC
.

Relevant Pages