On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Sarad AV wrote:
how do you know that apples and oranges are not same
or are same?
Its the way you look at it.
No, ever see Apple and Oranges cross-breed? -THEY- look at it that way
too. So there -is- something there to the cladistic viewpoint.
--
hi,
--- Jim Choate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Sarad AV wrote:
As you already see-what you say is correct for
your
definition of proof and axiom.
Here is the fundamental error in your thinking, you
are trying to argue
apples and oranges.
how do you know that
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Sarad AV wrote:
An axiom is an improvable statement which is accepted
as true.
An axiom is a statement which is -assumed to be universaly required-.
That is -not- equivalent to 'true' (eg A point has only position is not
'true' but a -definition- which is neither true or
hi,
--- Jim Choate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Sarad AV wrote:
An axiom is an improvable statement which is
accepted
as true.
An axiom is a statement which is -assumed to be
universaly required-.
That is -not- equivalent to 'true' (eg A point has
only position is
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Sarad AV wrote:
As you already see-what you say is correct for your
definition of proof and axiom.
Here is the fundamental error in your thinking, you are trying to argue
apples and oranges. As my comments alude to, what you are doing is trying
to argue geometry using two
hi,
--- Jim Choate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Sarad AV wrote:
Does a paradox ever help in understanding any
thing?
Yes, it can demonstrate that you aren't asking the
right questions within
the correct context.
okay.
2.Gödel asks for the program and the
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Sarad AV wrote:
Does a paradox ever help in understanding any thing?
Yes, it can demonstrate that you aren't asking the right questions within
the correct context.
We define a paradox on a base of rules we want to
prove.
No, a paradox is two things we accept that
increases without bound. If the answer is yes,
that might suggest that
any TOE based on all possible computations is
too small to
accomodate a really general notion of all possible
universes.
And this general line of reasoning leads to a Many
Worlds Version of
the Fermi Paradox: Why
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Tim May wrote:
And this general line of reasoning leads to a Many Worlds Version of
the Fermi Paradox: Why aren't they here?
Why aren't they all where? If they were 'here' then they wouldn't be
another world now would they?
The reason I lean toward the shut up
suggest that
any TOE based on all possible computations is too small to
accomodate a really general notion of all possible universes.
And this general line of reasoning leads to a Many Worlds Version of
the Fermi Paradox: Why aren't they here?
The reason I lean toward the shut up and calculate
10 matches
Mail list logo
