"One of the elementary particles, a lepton with a rest mass of 9.1093897 x 10^-31 kg (=0.5110334 MeV), an electric charge of -1.60218925x10-19 coulombs and a spin of 1/2, which obeys Fermi-Dirac statistics. See also atomic physics." ("Q is for Quantum: An Encyclopedia of Particle Physics" by John Gribbin, Free Press, 1998). If you need more definition of that particular particle then I'm sure I could get more details.

Hi Luis,

>>>***Disclaimer*** As an agnostic, I recognize the limits of my subjective experience. I’m perfectly capable of functioning from a tentative understanding of reality. I do not try to convince myself (or others) that I can see beyond my subjective limitations.>>H: "What if you found a logical error in my argument that I was accepting a false statement as true or a true statement as false?" L: If you stated "all statements in this book are true," then I could easily falsify it. But if you state that your underlying principle (Panentheism) accepts nothing as true but truth, then it is nonfalsifiable, at least in your opinion. For example, if I posit that the Uncertainty Principle suggests that "panentheism implies antirealism of truth," you could find a way to include uncertainty in PanentheismH: "...the reason why philosophers continue to make a living filling this void of ideas." L: The 'void' is based within the human being's inability to fully know reality. Period. Syllogistic tail-chasing, I call it. Successful philosophers are creative and intelligent, and so it's not too hard to understand why their treatises find so many fans; and why some of their written works make for interesting reading. But this is only an intellectual version of "the invisible hand." Beyond this utility I seriously doubt there's too many significant "voids" philosophers can fill.>>H: "Do you work with the concept of a chair as tentative?" L: (Disclaimer...) (BTW, what exactly do you mean by "work"? I don't normally find everyday activities like sitting in a chair "work." Again, you're trying very hard to push me to one extreme or the other.)>>Maybe you confuse ‘describe’ with ‘define.’ Perhaps this is the source of your incessant struggle to digest agnosticism (and I’m flattered you try so hard).

• Gnosticism vs. Agnosticism - luis_hamburgh - October 5, 2001 - 00:06 UTC
  • Some differences with gnosticism - harvey1 - October 5, 2001 - 03:08 UTC
    • Correction - harvey1 - October 5, 2001 - 03:18 UTC
    • Some similarities surface - luis_hamburgh - October 6, 2001 - 02:39 UTC
      • Look down further - harvey1 - October 8, 2001 - 05:39 UTC