Being a person of low intellect, I am not sure why IS needs to be restricted to physical entities. Why can't ideas exist in their own sort of ISness? Didn't even Descartes split the mind from the body on that very issue? He regarded the mind and body exisitng in separate spheres of IS. Of course he did have trouble locating the seat of the soul, finally choosing a tiny -- seemingly otherwise worthless gland -- at the brain stem. Hahah, it's so funny. Yet I bow to Descartes for many other reasons, for example, he was the savior of the God idea in the face of meat-eating, grunting scientists. Where is Saul Steinberg when we need him? I wish he had done a cartoons showing an IS made as a granite pediment and above it an IS evaporating like a cloud. Each has its own existence, but not by the terms of the other. Very Cartesian. But we are in a post Cartesian era, I think. WC
--- On Sat, 11/1/08, armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: "Certainty" > To: [email protected] > Cc: "armando baeza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Saturday, November 1, 2008, 11:40 PM > So according to http://en wikipedia, org,/wiki/ ,quantum > mechanics > adds a little more fuzzyness to.... what is art? > mando > On Nov 1, 2008, at 8:58 PM, Mike Mallory wrote: > > > From: "William Conger" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: "Certainty" > > > > > >> Did you notice that I said probabilities stand in > for facts in > >> some sciences (soft sciences)? Standing in for is > an as-if > >> situation, never equivalent to, but serving in > place of. > >> > >> WC > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > > > > Not just soft sciences, but physics. "Generally, > quantum mechanics > > does not assign definite values to observables. > Instead, it makes > > predictions about; probablility distributions that is, > the > > probability of obtaining each of the possible outcomes > from > > measuring an observable." > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > > Quantum_mechanics > > > > As I understand Quantum Mechanics, the best > description we are able > > to make (statement of fact) about some kinds of events > is, even in > > theory, a proposition in the form of a probability. > > > > Mike Mallory
