On 9/30/2012 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 29 Sep 2012, at 21:33, meekerdb wrote:

On 9/29/2012 7:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, and the fact that we cannot know which one bears us "here and now". The QM indeterminacy is made into a particular first person comp indeterminacy.

    Where is the "here and now" if not a localization in a physical world.

Perhaps, but you need to define what you mean by physical world without assuming a *primitive* physical world.

Physical objects are exactly the kind of thing that are defined ostensively.

They are referred too ostensively. They are not "defined" in that way, at least not in the theory.

Well of course, nothing can be referred to ostensively *in a theory*. But that's how theoretical definitions are given meaning via reference to what we perceive.

Only in practice, they referred too ostensively. In our context, we search a theory, not a practice.

A theory that can't be connected to practice is just abstract mathematics, a kind of language game. In fact you do connect your theory to practice by reference to diaries and perceptions.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to