Sentences with phrase «why simple nature»

Not exact matches

Also, I never proposed that randomness created anything (I only argued that some simple set of laws of physics are all that need be behind the designs of nature that we observe), so I don't know why you are going on about randomness in your last few sentences.

There is nothing about the nature of «the good» which explains why enjoyment is better than suffering, or why enjoyment plus intelligence is better than simple enjoyment, or why it is better to be aware than not to be aware.

Whitehead is prepared to have a view of the passage of nature as an actively patterning process, not simple as succession in time, which is why the analysis of it as sliced into events by itself is insufficient as leaving out this active patterning aspect.

But instead of trying to figure out My Paradoxes and Unfathomable Nature - which, by the way, you never will - why not open your hearts to the simple common threads in every religion?

«What is meant by «simple» is that its being is identical with its attributes... The reason why a nature is called simple is that it can not lose any attribute it possesses, that there is no difference between what it is and what it has.»

In short, it's why every day, in all we do, we continue to deliver on the Arrowhead Mills brand promise — simple products, straight from nature and as close as you can get to home.

Also known as «contrarian» betting, the logic behind fading the public is quite simple: It's human nature to root for winners and scoring, which is why we typically see the public pounding favorites and overs.

I can not understand why anyone who has been exposed to price action trading would ever trade any other way, it simply doesn't make any sense, it's like trying to drive a car blindfolded; basically making something that's relatively simple in nature much more complicated than it ever needs to be.

In fact, it's the surest and simplest pathway we can use to discover our fundamental nature, purpose, and essence... and gain a deeper grasp of who we are and why we're here.

It is a simple nature fighting back story line which loosely explains why these hunters and monsters are fighting each other — however, Evolve's main focus is on the gameplay.

Why, then, should this supreme scientist, of powerful intuitions, claim that nature is the realisation of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas?

What I don't understand is why there is so much angst about what is after all only simple empirical observations about the nature of a time series (even if aspects of the analysis maybe open to theoretical debate), and so little curiosity about what this all means for statistical inference more generally in climate science.