Hi Stephen P. King In idealism, physics is conceptual, so things must happen as they're supposed to.
Roger Clough, [email protected] 11/9/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-08, 08:36:43 Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic On 11/8/2012 6:29 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stephen P. King > > You don't need to throw anything. > Parabolas are completely described mathematically. OK, what is the connection between the particular case of throwing and a mathematical description? > > > Roger Clough, [email protected] > 11/8/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > From: Stephen P. King > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-11-07, 19:42:25 > Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic > > > On 11/7/2012 12:46 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 07 Nov 2012, at 17:16, Stephen P. King wrote: >> >>> On 11/7/2012 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> On 06 Nov 2012, at 17:05, Stephen P. King wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 11/6/2012 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>>> snip >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> Dear Bruno, >>>>> >>>>> So do you agree that the relation goes both ways, which is to say >>>>> that the relation is symetrical? If the action of throwing an apple >>>>> implies a parabola, does the existence of the parabola alone define >>>>> the particular act of throwing the apple? >>>> Throwing an apple ===> a parabola >>>> >>>> But throwing a banana ====> a parabola, too. >>>> >>>> >>> Dear Bruno, >>> >>> Can you not see that these two relations are not in a symmetrical >>> one-to-one relation? There are many actions that can be represented >>> by one and the same parabola. >> Then why do you ask me if it is symmetrical. You make my point here. >> >> > Hi Bruno, > > That is not my question. If you agree that the relation is not > symmetrical, then how can you use the existence of the parabola to > necessitate the particular case (throwing an apple) without further > explanation as to how that one special case is selected? We can show the > existence of a general class of entities far easier than the existence > of a particular entity! > > > -- Onward! Stephen -- 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. -- 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.
