[MD] Uncertainty

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 24 Sep 2009 at 9:55, Arlo Bensinger wrote:

> [Platt]
> So much for the nonsense that "everything changes." Once dead, always dead.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Still struggling with linguistic paradox, are you? We are back to the 
> "mathematical definition of randomness"... The patterns that 
> comprised the "person" continue to change... the atoms continue to 
> move, join, break apart... in a few billion years they will be 
> stretched across the universe... there is not one part of the 
> "person" that does not continue to change in some way... it may not 
> change the way *you* hope, but they continue to change nonetheless... 
> What's funny is that your argument here is "since time does not move 
> backwards (that we can seemingly perceive), therefore some things are 
> permanent"...

Seems that you assume in your scenario that atoms and other inorganic 
patterns (physical laws) are permanent. 

> Consider a star exploding... you can say with the highest probablity 
> based on our observations that "that star was it was" will never 
> exist again... This is not an argument disproving that "nothing 
> changes", because the pattern we perceived in a past time will likely 
> not exist in the same way in the future. In fact, Platt, it is indeed 
> proof that "everything changes".

Seems in this scenario that there will always be patterns of one sort or 
another. In fact, the more you give examples, the more it seems 
everything doesn't change. 

> Thanks for your supportive example. I am really sorry you are 
> struggling with this hard. Keep at it, you may get it one day.
 
Perhaps you can come up with some examples of "everything changes" 
in which something permanent doesn't have to be acknowledged. 

Further, perhaps you can explain how the score of Penn State's last 
football game will change. . Wasn't in Penn State 31, Temple 6?