Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 8049052" data-attributes="member: 177">No.&nbsp; It is a choice of metaphysics.Unless you want to claim the ability to read minds, you do not know why people make a choice unless they tell you explicitly.&nbsp; Please do not tell people why they do things - they get cranky, especially when you make it uncomplimentary.And you don't want to make people cranky, do you?&nbsp; So, there was a time when you did not know Newton's Laws of Motion.&nbsp; You could not, at that time, accurately predict the motion of objects, in general - you could have a decent idea of some special cases with which you have a lot of personal experience (like, say, playing catch), and have some general ideas of broad trends, but no way to predict in accuracy or detail.Did you assume that the movements of items had no objective reality behind them?&nbsp; Or did you figure there were some rules you didn't know?I expect that the result of not understanding the rules probably would not look like subjective, unless you were very lucky.&nbsp; if the rules are subjective, you merely have to find the point of view for each case, and they become understandable.&nbsp; Subjective systems are still understandable.In all likelihood, in a world where mortals could not fully grasp the rules, there would be times (more or less frequent, depending on the rules) where they'd look arbitrary.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 8049052, member: 177"] No. It is a choice of metaphysics. Unless you want to claim the ability to read minds, you do not know [I]why[/I] people make a choice unless they tell you explicitly. Please do not tell people why they do things - they get cranky, especially when you make it uncomplimentary. And you don't want to make people cranky, do you? So, there was a time when you did not know Newton's Laws of Motion. You could not, at that time, accurately predict the motion of objects, in general - you could have a decent idea of some special cases with which you have a lot of personal experience (like, say, playing catch), and have some general ideas of broad trends, but no way to predict in accuracy or detail. Did you assume that the movements of items had no objective reality behind them? Or did you figure there were some rules you didn't know? I expect that the result of not understanding the rules probably would not look like subjective, unless you were very lucky. if the rules are subjective, you merely have to find the point of view for each case, and they become understandable. Subjective systems are still understandable. In all likelihood, in a world where mortals could not fully grasp the rules, there would be times (more or less frequent, depending on the rules) where they'd look [I]arbitrary[/I]. [/QUOTE]

Verification