subjective nature of the universe

Originally posted by mikado
Thanks for that reply, but I still don't completely understand.

As I understand your post, F(X) is defined as the "follower" of X. What do you mean by "follow"? Outside my window I can see a queue of traffic, with a red car followed by a blue car, followed by a green car, etc. However I wouldn't want to make the sequence of colours in the traffic o ...[text shortened]... rld.

I trust I'm not either misinterpreting you or stating the bleeding obvious!! 😀

Mick

Insetad of "follower", "successor" would be a better word. Sorr,y got trapped in semantical manacles.

In fact, historically speaking, you are right; maths come(s?) (here is a discussion-which makes more sense, British 'maths' or American 'math'?) from very empirical roots. However, its history is not necessarily its nature. I believe (and I could be wrong) that mathematical truths exist independently of the physical world, the same way any other information does. It manifests itself in our senses and minds by showing up in the physical world, but a fundamental truth is an abstraction and should not be tied to the world any more than is necessary.

~Mark

Originally posted by bbarr
In cases like this we clarify what is meant by omnipotence. Omnipotence is not the power to do anything, it is the power to do any logical possible thing. It is logically impossible to create a rock an omnipotent being cannot lift, so it is ...[text shortened]... a transcendence of seprateness, etc., depending on who you read.

I thought Omnipotence was The Pope says:God speaks through me.
I could talk for hours about how these guys know so much about:
Having kids.
Abortion.
Contraception.
Divorce.
The Vatiican should wake up.
They live a life of Celebicey.
That is their choice.
They should not make rules for normal people
Linda.