http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/ Naturalism Philosophy Forum Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:15:36 GMT JRS . http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5400 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5400 Hi Stephen, What do you have against the words 'would' 'will' and 'may'? these seem to cover all the cases you wish to describe without bringing up the specter Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:07:23 GMT stephnlawrnce@... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5399 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5399 Ken, All events are results of their determinants, they are the only thing that could have happened, they couldn't have happened otherwise. So it's physically Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:17:10 GMT Alice http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5398 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5398 I'm with you Ken.. It sounds to me like a car enthusiast (driver) talking to a mechanic.. "gee I love the way that car roles into the corners." "Well it Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:19:26 GMT Ken http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5397 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5397 All events are results of their determinants, they are the only thing that could have happened, they couldn't have happened otherwise. Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:42:42 GMT stephnlawrnce@... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5396 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5396 Ken I agree that our philosophy must be consistent over time, the same for the future and the past, since the past used to be the future and the future will Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:27:00 GMT stephnlawrnce@... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5395 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5395 I was reading Mikes post on Facebook today and he quoted this one, which I think wonderful - To quote Yogi Berra again, "The future ain't what it used to be!"" Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:23:07 GMT Alice http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5394 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5394 Stephen, I think it is sometimes useful to make finer distinctions regarding what is not possible - but only in context to what we might do differently in the Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:33:27 GMT Ken http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5393 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5393 David: Your analysis rings true for me. There's no need to speak of the past and the future in the same way, we're not likely to confuse them! We say "I'll Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:20:15 GMT David Montgomery http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5392 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5392 I am also quite interested in getting more clarity around possibility. ... If I understand Stephen correctly, he is saying that since we want to talk about Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:18:36 GMT Ken http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5391 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5391 ... I agree that our philosophy must be consistent over time, the same for the future and the past, since the past used to be the future and the future will Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:45:16 GMT stephnlawrnce@... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5390 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5390 My writing looks big and bold as if I'm shouting once I've posted the email (don't know if it's coming out that way your end) but normal when I write the Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:39:03 GMT stephnlawrnce@... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5389 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5389 Ken, Stephen: You seem intent on blurring the line between logically possible and physical possibility. And my goal is to do the opposite, to highlight that Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:00:55 GMT Ken http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5388 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5388 Stephen: You seem intent on blurring the line between logically possible and physical possibility. And my goal is to do the opposite, to highlight that Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:26:34 GMT stephnlawrnce@... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5387 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5387 Ken, As I said in my recent post, "could have been," when applied to human being, means "was able to." To say Alice (in Wonderland or Australia?!) could have Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:16:26 GMT Alice http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5386 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalismphilosophyforum/message/5386 ... _____ From: naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Sent: Sunday, 22 November 2009