...may be postulated to be fundamental. A primordial persisting order is as conceivable and permissible, metaphysically speaking, as primordial disorder. What compares this "Now" with a past (that no longer exists?) and infers differences between them (that something changed?) That is, what other than cognitive beings like humans makes a judgement that change took place? There are no theories, scientific or metaphysical, in the ...

... models in the first place. How does this changing "external world" change? What, if anything, maintains any order or nomological-like habits it may have that persist over these changes? What compares this "Now" with a past (that no longer exists?) and infers differences between them (that something changed?) That is, what other than cognitive beings like humans makes a judgement that change took place? posted by Ecce

...of this Now, which it has slated for annihilation? If a brain has a memory of what it believes are former moments, and that memory is being compared to the brain's own specious Now to denote a difference and infer "change", then that would have to be a static comparative relationship (since the brain is embedded in a single global Now). If brains are the only regions where there are such relations between a (specious) present and a past...

...-5.10.x/.cpanplus/5.10.0/build/PAR-Dist-0.32/blib/lib/PAR/Dist.pm line 898. I was unable to determine the name and version of the PAR distribution. Please create a Makefile or META.yml file from which we can infer the information or just specify the missing information as an option to blib_to_par. at t/03merge_meta.t line 75 # Failed test 8 in t/03merge_meta.t at line 82 Dubious, test returned 2 (wstat 512, 0x200) Failed 18/25 subtests ...

...-5.10.x/.cpanplus/5.10.0/build/PAR-Dist-0.33/blib/lib/PAR/Dist.pm line 904. I was unable to determine the name and version of the PAR distribution. Please create a Makefile or META.yml file from which we can infer the information or just specify the missing information as an option to blib_to_par. at t/03merge_meta.t line 75 # Failed test 8 in t/03merge_meta.t at line 82 # t/03merge_meta.t line 82 is: ok(defined($meta)); Failed to load YAML ...

....8.x/.cpanplus/5.8.8/build/PAR-Dist-0.32/blib/lib/PAR/Dist.pm line 898. I was unable to determine the name and version of the PAR distribution. Please create a Makefile or META.yml file from which we can infer the information or just specify the missing information as an option to blib_to_par. at t/03merge_meta.t line 75 # Failed test 8 in t/03merge_meta.t at line 82 Dubious, test returned 2 (wstat 512, 0x200) Failed 18/25 subtests Test...

....8.x/.cpanplus/5.8.8/build/PAR-Dist-0.33/blib/lib/PAR/Dist.pm line 904. I was unable to determine the name and version of the PAR distribution. Please create a Makefile or META.yml file from which we can infer the information or just specify the missing information as an option to blib_to_par. at t/03merge_meta.t line 75 # Failed test 8 in t/03merge_meta.t at line 82 Dubious, test returned 2 (wstat 512, 0x200) Failed 18/25 subtests Test...

....8.8/.cpanplus/5.8.8/build/PAR-Dist-0.32/blib/lib/PAR/Dist.pm line 898. I was unable to determine the name and version of the PAR distribution. Please create a Makefile or META.yml file from which we can infer the information or just specify the missing information as an option to blib_to_par. at t/03merge_meta.t line 75 # Failed test 8 in t/03merge_meta.t at line 82 Dubious, test returned 2 (wstat 512, 0x200) Failed 18/25 subtests Test...

...5.8.8/.cpanplus/5.8.8/build/PAR-Dist-0.33/blib/lib/PAR/Dist.pm line 904. I was unable to determine the name and version of the PAR distribution. Please create a Makefile or META.yml file from which we can infer the information or just specify the missing information as an option to blib_to_par. at t/03merge_meta.t line 75 # Failed test 8 in t/03merge_meta.t at line 82 # t/03merge_meta.t line 82 is: ok(defined($meta)); Dubious, test returned...

... does that prove that God exists? I just can't help asking! -- hz Well, Berkeley thought so, but I don't. :-) IMO, "working backwards" on Berkeley's argument amounts inferring an antecedent from a consequent. I'm rereading Berkeley's essay (after about 40 years!), and haven;'t come to the god bit yet. Found the essay when I started culling books. I suppose I could have asked the question in a more ...