On 05 Nov 2012, at 17:31, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/5/2012 11:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Bruno,
I am using the possibility of a claim to make my argument, not
any actual instance of a claim. There is a difference. In comp
there are claims that such and such know or believe or bet. I am
trying to widen our thinking of how the potentials of acts is
important.
I don't understand how you reason.
I try to obey the rules of grammar in communication. If a word
implies an action, such as "run" or "implement" or "interview", then
there should be some action involved in the referent of the word. Or
else it does not imply an action and it an object. Simple logical
consistency in semiotics.
This is not convincing as we can make statical interpretation of
actions. In physics this is traditionally done by adding one
dimension. The action of throwing an apple (action) can easily be
associated to a parabola in space-time.
This invalidate your point, even if you say that such parabola does
not exist, as you will need to beg on the "real action" to make your
point.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
