Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 09-mai-07, à 09:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
>> Of course reality doesn't change.  The question of map versus
>> territory is *not* an all or nothing
>> question.  *sometimes* the map equals the territory.  Most of the time
>> it does not.
> This is an important point where I agree with Marc. With or without 
> comp the necessity of distinguishing the map and the territory cannot 
> be uniform, there are "meaning"-fixed-point, like when a map is 
> embedded continuously in the territory (assuming some topology in the 
> map and in the territory, this follows by a fixed point theorem by 
> Brouwer, which today admits many interesting computational 
> interpretations.
> Bruno

I don't think you can define a topology on "meaning" that will allow the fixed 
point theorem to apply.

Brent Meeker

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