Posts
Post has attachment
Post has attachment
Post has attachment
Finally.... NASA has come clean!
The doctrine of analogical predication
...the names said of God and creatures are predicated neither univocally nor equivocally but analogically.... (Aquinas, SCG I, 34)
And in this way some things are said of God and creatures analogically, and not in a purely equivocal nor in a purely univocal sense. For we can name God only from creatures. Thus whatever is said of God and creatures
is said according to the relation of a creature to God as its principle and cause, wherein all perfections of things pre-exist excellently. (Aquinas, ST Ia, 13, 5)
There are predicates F that apply to both God and creatures—that is, such that both ‘God is F ’ and ‘This creature is F ’ can be true.
The senses of F in these sentences are not the same, but they are systematically
related to each other.
The relation between the senses of F is analogical, proportional, causal, or according
to principle.
We understand God by way of our predications of creatures. That is, the sense
of F in ‘This creature is F ’ is epistemically prior to its sense in ‘God is F .’ The sense of F
in ‘God is F ’ is metaphysically prior to its sense in ‘This creature is F .’
Argument from Analogy: Similarity of Structure
a is F
There is a homomorphism h from a into b
Therefore, b is F
Argument from Analogy: Similarity within Similar Structures
a is F
There is a homomorphism h from a structure containing a into a structure
containing b such that h(a) = b.
Therefore, b is h(F)
Argument from Analogy: Similarity to a Set
a is F
There is a homomorphism h from a structure containing a 2 D into a
structure containing a set c D such that b 2 c and h(a) = c.
Therefore, b is h(F)
Argument from Analogy: Turing Reducibility
a is F
There is a Turing reduction of F to F relating a to b
Therefore, b is F
...the names said of God and creatures are predicated neither univocally nor equivocally but analogically.... (Aquinas, SCG I, 34)
And in this way some things are said of God and creatures analogically, and not in a purely equivocal nor in a purely univocal sense. For we can name God only from creatures. Thus whatever is said of God and creatures
is said according to the relation of a creature to God as its principle and cause, wherein all perfections of things pre-exist excellently. (Aquinas, ST Ia, 13, 5)
There are predicates F that apply to both God and creatures—that is, such that both ‘God is F ’ and ‘This creature is F ’ can be true.
The senses of F in these sentences are not the same, but they are systematically
related to each other.
The relation between the senses of F is analogical, proportional, causal, or according
to principle.
We understand God by way of our predications of creatures. That is, the sense
of F in ‘This creature is F ’ is epistemically prior to its sense in ‘God is F .’ The sense of F
in ‘God is F ’ is metaphysically prior to its sense in ‘This creature is F .’
Argument from Analogy: Similarity of Structure
a is F
There is a homomorphism h from a into b
Therefore, b is F
Argument from Analogy: Similarity within Similar Structures
a is F
There is a homomorphism h from a structure containing a into a structure
containing b such that h(a) = b.
Therefore, b is h(F)
Argument from Analogy: Similarity to a Set
a is F
There is a homomorphism h from a structure containing a 2 D into a
structure containing a set c D such that b 2 c and h(a) = c.
Therefore, b is h(F)
Argument from Analogy: Turing Reducibility
a is F
There is a Turing reduction of F to F relating a to b
Therefore, b is F
Post has attachment
Our audio is from a secondary source and has some echo issues. We lost our primary audio feed but its still audible.
Ladies and gentlemen,
A-Theory or B-Theory of time?
Which theory would accommodate a more rational backward time travel scenario?
For fun, what movie or TV program on time travel is most plausible?
Frankly, I was disappointed in Lost' s handling of time travel, which made the alternate future a stupid spiritual purgatory and not a Level 3 multi-verse scenario.
I think a hangout is due.
A-Theory or B-Theory of time?
Which theory would accommodate a more rational backward time travel scenario?
For fun, what movie or TV program on time travel is most plausible?
Frankly, I was disappointed in Lost' s handling of time travel, which made the alternate future a stupid spiritual purgatory and not a Level 3 multi-verse scenario.
I think a hangout is due.
Post has attachment
Had to do it- LOL

Post has attachment
Post has attachment
Who is God: do we have the right to define reality as we please.
Wait while more posts are being loaded

