I've already defined it before, making use of Wittgenstein's suggestion:Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Fujaro, how do you define the word "reality"?
Reality is all that is the case.
I've already defined it before, making use of Wittgenstein's suggestion:Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Fujaro, how do you define the word "reality"?
Another one that comes emptyhanded to the table.Tomas wrote:No doubt. There's more-than-a-few windbags on this forum.Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Fujaro, how do you define the word "reality"?
.
If A=A is to be taken as a absolute universal truth, it must hold for every possible combination of t1 and t2, e.g. A(t1)=A(t2).Kevin Solway wrote:A(x) is always identical with A(x), so the law of identity is still meaningful.
Well, there are other posibilities. It may be that time is like a loop. What'wrong with that? Don't you feel complete without a first cause?David Quinn wrote:You have difficulty wrapping your mind around the notion of timelessness? For that is what an uncaused Nature essentially means - that it is timeless.