On May 8, 6:03 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Yes, but the theory is our idea of that "partial match" and is a human
> construct. As a human idea, the theory is something separate. But the
> objective reality of nature (whatever it is) is not something separate to
> the objective reality of nature. Maybe we are quibbling about words, but it
> is in the spirit of Occam's Razor to have the minimum number of entities
> possible.
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou

No!  The theory is not the *idea* of the partial match.  The theory
(the parts which are correct) *is identical* to to the match.  The
distinction between map and territory is dissolving.  Again, you need
to keep your eye on the ball and think computer science and
information here.  The theory *is information*.  The reality is
*information*.  Therefore, *for the particular parts of the theory
which are correct* , those parts of the theory (the abstracted
information content) *are identical* to the reality.  Reality is
information....theory is information...and at the intersection (where
the two over-lap and at the right level of abstraction) it's
*identical* information.

Think of it another way.  OOP (Object Oriented Programming) draws no
distinction between an objective 'object' and an abstracted 'class'.
You can create abstract classes (which correspond to for instance
abstract ideas) but these classes ARE THEMSELVES OBJECTS.  Think about

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to