Talk:Grouped events
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
- Add new text under old text.
- New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.
- Assume good faith
- Be polite and avoid personal attacks
- Be welcoming to newcomers
- Seek dispute resolution if needed
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
1) Does it make sense to have a general page on 'Grouped Events' when the events in question can be almost anything? Is this not overly general for an Encyclopedia page?
2) I am slightly in favour of the Criticisms and interpretation section which states that the notion of meaning is subjective BUT I would argue that the 'reasonable man' (ahem) would probably attribute the same meaning to an event as another (ahem) 'reasonable man'. Of course, the definition of a 'reasonable man' does also appear subjective, so perhaps attempts at objective discernment of the notion of 'meaning' will not go as well as hoped. I sense a Polish parliament situation here...
3) I sense that notions such as causality may appear obvious to some (the car crashed killing the pedestrian establishes clear causality), however the physical mechanisms responsible for causal linkages are NOT often clear. In fact, the only thing that can understand how the billions of atoms making up a light switch can control the light bulb itself IS nature BUT we humans do a good job of creating representations which reflect how the physical world operates (in some situations at least). This would be the correspondence theory of Truth. However, we cannot always generate correspondence theories that reflect what nature is doing, hence our limited understanding of causality. Further, if time is an illusion, then what, precisely would causality actually be?
I could go on, but will stop here. ASavantDude (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC) Reply