On 01-16-98 Frank Masingill wrote to John Boone... 
 
        Hello Frank and thanks for writing, 
  
 FM> JB> Are we not able to predict future events?  I ask, can you tell me 
 FM> JB> what 
 FM> JB> would happen to your computer if you were to blow up your 
 FM> JB> computer 
 FM> JB> (prior to having blown it up)?  Do you -need- to experience the 
 FM> JB> computer to know what would happen? 
   
        [snip] 
  
 FM> until they were replaced or repaired.  Hume said we were not allowed 
 FM> to set up 
 FM> observation of events following each other as absolutely related 
 FM> through cause 
 FM> and effect.  You cannot predict absolutely that the sun will appear on 
 
   Hmmm, it depends -what- cause and effect we are speaking about. 
From the scientific method, the -theories- are in fact NOT absolute 
as said -theories- are -inductive-.  
   There is a difference between cause and effect -EXTENDING- 
over time (the inductive approach and therefore non-conclusive) 
and cause and effect -limited- to AFTER THE FACT (please, notice 
all the information and conclusion is contained with the premises, 
thus suppling conclusive truth). 
   So, I disagree that we can't set up -any- observation of 
events following each other as absolutely related through 
cause and effect.  For example, when we decapitate a chicken 
resulting in the chicken's death. We can AFTER THE FACT, say 
in absolute terms the decapitation of -the- chicken is the 
absolute cause of the chicken's death.  However, it is something 
different to extend said rule -INTO- the future thus giving an 
inductive argument and therefore not conclusive. 
  
 FM> the horizon tomorrow. 
   
  Yep, as such information is -inductive- and therefore the 
the information in the conclusion is not contained within 
the premises, however, we can still predict. 
  
 FM>    But you've carried my observations about whether or not history has
 FM> an 
 FM> eidos to quite unusual types of rebuttals.   You can tell me what you 
 FM> think 
 FM> the eidos of history (structure of reality) is and I can tell you what 
 FM> *I* 
 FM> think it is but all that yields is two different stories.  You seem to 
 FM> be 
 FM> scrupulously avoiding that part of what I DO say that would weaken 
 FM> your 
 FM> rebuttals.  I'm not sure there is much that I can do about that.  I 
 
  I don't see me avoiding that which weakens my rebuttals. 
Pleae point them out.  
 
 FM> don't 
 FM> think there is much else I can contribute on the subject.   
   
  Whatever you say, and it could be said you seem to be 
avoiding that which weakens your argument.  
 
        [snip] 
  
 FM> JB> first sentence is telling a falsehood." Let me try again. "I can 
 FM> JB> NEVER 
 FM> JB> ever make -FINAL- statements." Do you not see, the sentence is in 
 FM> JB> fact a 
 FM> JB> final statement thus contradicting the original assertion as the 
 FM> JB> sentence is itself a statement? This is what, I am telling you 
 FM> JB> that your statement is doing. 
   
 FM>    I cannot repeat my full context each time I make a statement. John. 
 FM>  Try "I 
 FM> can NEVER ever make FINAL statements as long as I am mortal."   That 
 
  Are you not mortal? Yes, condition one satisfied. Second, did 
you did not make a final statement with the words, "I can NEVER 
ever make FINAL statements?"  Yes, thus contradicting the original 
premise, sorry, Frank, doesn't escape the inconsistency, try again. 
  
 FM> doesn't 
 FM> hold should I be able to become immortal while the world somehow 
 FM> remains the 
 FM> same.  Of course it is precisely the metastatic view that the world 
 FM> can 
 FM> magically change and yet at the same time remain the same.   
 
Take care, 
John 
 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.54 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------