On 1/21/2013 2:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I mean if we wanted to get technical I would split the physics of
counting into the private motive experience quantitative reasoning
from the sensory experiences of figures or forms upon which we project
our representations, but yeah numbers need a substrate. I call that
substrate physical, but not material as it experiential/intentional
rather than substantial/extended.
Hi Craig,
What is the difference between experiential/intentional and
substantial/extended other than a vague and undefined reference to some
imaginary 3p? What I experience is 'substantial to me', at least for a
moment until what ever it was vanishes again as new data arrives. What
is intensional to me, as in, X implies Y where X does not equal Y or X
is not the same as Y, other than a difference in quantity; the same kind
of difference that one end of a yardstick has from the other end, when
we abstracted away the variances.
So the one associated with yardsticks is easily represented as a
scalar value, but isn't every thing substantial quantifiable in some way
too? We sometimes fall prey to misplaced categorization...
--
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.
