So, wait…
If I have:
A) I sleep with Claudia Schiffer before I die.
B) I don’t sleep with Claudia Schiffer before I die.
Does that mean my chances are 50%? Cause I can live with those odds, I assure you. 
shouldn’t miss claudia have a say in this? 
Given equal weight to the possibilities, you may be a lucky man yet. :
Only to the extent that the instigator of this thread seems to be singularly incapable of adequate precision.
In Einstein’s General Relativity (GR) conception, gravity is the result of spacetime curvature. The curvature is induced by the presence of mass-energy and a free-falling body follows a geodesic (shortest distance) within the 4-D spacetime manifold. Thus, if GR is a valid theory (and it has yet to receive any serious challenges), then gravity is purely material. Moreover, physicists have good theoretical grounds for supposing that gravity, on the subatomic scale, is mediated by particles they call “gravitons,” once again lending weight (no pun intended) to the idea that gravity is purely material.
'Luthon64
Interestingly enough, in his book The Road to Reality, Penrose distinguishes between the following three worlds:
- A physical world
- A mental world
- A platonic mathematical world
Mintaka
I can do a platonic relationship with maths. Anything deeper and I am afraid I cannot commit.
;D
The platonic mathematical world contains stuff like perfect triangles and one dimensional lines, which are impossible to construct in the physical world, and hard to imagine in the mental world.
The physical world appears to be under strict control of the mathematical world. Why should this be? Its a mystery. Yet F=ma comes out spot-on every time we care to check in a laboratory. So my best guess at an answer to Mechanist’s question
Statement X: Something existing for infinity has the potential to give rise to minds and mental properties. What is this something? A) A material "something" without mental properties that has the potential to give rise to minds. B) A mental "something" without material properties that has the potential to give rise to other minds. C) A material and mental "something" with the potential to give rise to other material entities and minds. D) Something else with the potential to give rise to other material entities and minds.What would be the underlying cause be for this infinite “something” (A, B, C or D) to have the potential to give rise to other minds?
is D) Mathematical rules.
Could mathematics be the elusive nonmaterial mind? :-\
Mintaka
Interesting, now we have three variables. Let’s revise statement X a little. First, a description of what entails physical, mental, and a platonic mathematical world (mathematical realism).
- Physical: Entities composed of matter and/or energy and their related properties that can be measured without changing their identity. We observe (mentally) that physical entities exist.
- Mental: Mental events are related to intellectual processes of thought, perception, memory, emotion, will, imagination and intentionality. We observe the mental actions of other physical agents.
- Platonic mathematical universals: This can be described as mathematical entities that exist independently of mental events. They are abstract, have no spatiotemporal or causal properties, and are eternal and unchanging. They are impossible to construct in the physical world, and hard to imagine in the mental world (Mintaka).
Revised Statement X:
Something existing for infinity has the potential to give rise to mental events.
What is this “something”?
A) A physical “something” without platonic mathematical universals and without mental properties that has the potential to give rise to mental events (minds).
B) A physical “something” with platonic mathematical universals and without mental properties that has the potential to give rise to mental events (minds).
C) A physical “something” with platonic mathematical universals and with mental properties that has the potential to give rise to mental events (minds).
D) A mental “something” with platonic mathematical universals and without physical properties that has the potential to give rise to physical entities and mental events (minds).
E) A mental “something” without platonic mathematical universals and without physical properties that has the potential to give rise to physical entities and mental events (minds).
F) A platonic mathematical universal “something” without mental properties and without physical properties that has the potential to give rise to physical entities and mental events (minds).
What would be the underlying cause be for this infinite “something” (A-F) to have the potential to give rise to mental events?
(Unwarranted assumptions + Inappropriate questions) × Blithe ignorance2 = Bad philosophy.
'Luthon64
That is cute. Can you give a cute equation for what equals “good philosophy”.
Also, all you need to do is pinpoint:
- The unwarranted assumptions. Assuming the validity of this cute equation might turn out to be an unwarranted assumption.
- Why certain questions are inappropriate and others not.
- Define blithe ignorance. I suspect we are all blithely ignorant about some aspects of reality. How are you going to get a good philosophy from that cute equation.
But hardly as preciously droll as certain obvious-but-enormously-inconvenient parallels.
'Luthon64
More hedging?
Do you see any “maybes,” “seems likes,” “possiblies,” or similar in what I wrote in this thread?
Where?
If you’re not receptive to legitimate counters (as has been amply shown), might I suggest that you focus your quaintly infantile speculations and pretences to knowledge on further developing your clumsy, agenda-driven philosophy? That way you will at least provide more general entertainment, bland though it mostly is.
'Luthon64
I see a cute equation and “as preciously droll as certain”. Care to elaborate why those “pretenses to knowledge” and “speculations” (dare I say “quaintly infantile speculations” :o :P) need to be focused on?
Once again, already done, as a not-so-careful reading would make plain.
But you’ve delivered a good one! When all else fails, dodge and pretend you don’t know what your critic is talking about. Well, I suppose that millions and millions of people simply wouldn’t believe you, but I do! (Yeah, right.) Still and all, it’s funny, is it not, how your peculiar brand of mind-numbing drivel consistently and repeatedly attracts very similar reactions wherever you post it? Now don’t go confusing that controversy with a badge of profound sagacity, see? Because it isn’t one.
'Luthon64
Lol ok, if you say so. I guess giving cute equations and “as preciously droll as certain” statements constitute some form of profound sagacity to some. So be it.
Aaanyway, to get back on topic and for anyone else willing to give their profound insights:
- Physical: Entities composed of matter and/or energy and their related properties that can be measured without changing their identity. We observe (mentally) that physical entities exist.
- Mental: Mental events are related to intellectual processes of thought, perception, memory, emotion, will, imagination and intentionality. We observe the mental actions of other physical agents.
- Platonic mathematical universals: This can be described as mathematical entities that exist independently of mental events. They are abstract, have no spatiotemporal or causal properties, and are eternal and unchanging. They are impossible to construct in the physical world, and hard to imagine in the mental world (Mintaka).
Something existing for infinity has the potential to give rise to mental events.
What is this “something”?
A) A physical “something” without platonic mathematical universals and without mental properties that has the potential to give rise to mental events (minds).
B) A physical “something” with platonic mathematical universals and without mental properties that has the potential to give rise to mental events (minds).
C) A physical “something” with platonic mathematical universals and with mental properties that has the potential to give rise to mental events (minds).
D) A mental “something” with platonic mathematical universals and without physical properties that has the potential to give rise to physical entities and mental events (minds).
E) A mental “something” without platonic mathematical universals and without physical properties that has the potential to give rise to physical entities and mental events (minds).
F) A platonic mathematical universal “something” without mental properties and without physical properties that has the potential to give rise to physical entities and mental events (minds).
What would be the underlying cause be for this infinite “something” (A-F) to have the potential to give rise to mental events?
'Luthon64
Perhaps the term "cause’ is problematic for you and your cute equation?
No, this entire wobbly construction of yours is, from inception through its present status quo to no doubt murky non-resolution, “problematic” for me and my cute equation. But please don’t let that stand in your way of assuming yourself into the slot of arbiter of weighty matters because I woke up in an unusually jovial mood this morning and your musings have so far mostly boosted my levity.
'Luthon64
Well hey, it must be a wobbly construction because you say so right.