Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sri-unix!gwyn@Brl-Vld.ARPA
From: gwyn@Brl-Vld.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: [cmm:  Re: Now and Then - (nf)]
Message-ID: <12748@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 23-Aug-84 18:04:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.12748
Posted: Thu Aug 23 18:04:33 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 30-Aug-84 00:45:37 EDT
Lines: 21

From:      Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@Brl-Vld.ARPA>

>This is extracted from net.philosophy.  

>>>Or, putting it slightly differently, the traditional view of
>>>cause-and-effect is that one action causes another action;

>>>This avoids the
>>>endless backward causal chain problem (and the "prime mover").

>>How so?  To avoid the "prime mover" I would think requires accepting that the
>>causal chain extends infinitely into the past, or accepting the universe's
>>right to behave capriciously, and substitute "prime mover" with
>>"prime spontaneous event".  Causative behavior due to inherent nature
>>plus a finite causal chain seems to me to imply a first cause.

Before this discussion goes much farther, please note that my comments
(>>>) were quoted out of context, and the "This" in the second grouping
referred to an ALTERNATIVE to the "traditional view", which was given
where the GAP now is.  I leave it to the reader to guess why the person
quoting me chose to misrepresent my views.