>> First, I never wrote anything in "alternative Universe." I even reject the
>> phrase as a contradiction.
>
>Right. You reject the phrase as a contradiction, even though you know
>perfectly well what I'm talking about (alternate Universes a la "Lord Kalvan
>of Otherwhen" or "All the Myriad Ways" or two hundred other books), and even
>though counterfactual processes are built into the basic ontological substrate
>of reality (quantum mechanics; the Schrodinger equation and linear evolution).
>
Say what! What on earth are you talking about? What is it you imagine that
I "know perfectly well?" Until your post, I had never heard of "Lord
Kalvan", nor "Otherwhen", nor "All the Myraid Ways."
As for, > and even though counterfactual processes are built into the basic
>ontological substrate of reality (quantum mechanics; the
Schrodinger > >equation and linear evolution).
I haven't heard of this before either. What is it supposed to mean? I don't
know and considering terminology like "counterfactual processes" seriously
doubt that anyone else does either. I don't know what your problem is,
fella, but you sure have me mixed up with a lot of things that ain't me.
snip
>Wrong. My version was altered from yours almost verbatim, maintained most of
>the phrasing, and did not alter any meaning except substituting "reality"
for "morality".
"substituting 'reality for morality'? And you see nothing wrong with this? I
consistently use the term objective as in objective reality as the real and
basis for all truth. I clearly and emphatically stated again and again that
"objective morality" is myth. Opposites, right? So, you take my position of
objective reality as all truth and exchange it for my position of "objective
morality" as no truth and see nothing wrong with the 180 shift of my actual
position. You call this "paraphrasing?" I think I need to call a linguistic
paramedic because you sure have butchered the hell out of my words. Did you
read "The Anatomy Of Language" as I suggested? My language usage is directed
by the principles cited therein. To disregard these principles of definition
and presume to rearrange my words in any order or disorder you choose, and
still imagine it represents my beliefs and arguments is ludicrous.
>I am not debating with someone who mysteriously forgets what the term
>"objective morality" means after starting an attack on it.
I sure didn't 'forget' and imagine that objective reality (real) and
"objective morality"(myth) are the same thing. Somebody did. Guess who.
>There is a
>difference between analyzing a definition and pretending not to understand it.
Definitions are my forte. See the book. So you don't want to debate with
me anymore. That's great, but considering your "paraphrasing" and other
random attributing to my position, I don't see that you have EVER debated
with me.
Delmar England