On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 12:27:19 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 12:10:27 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/11/2019 12:18 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> > I am saying that SINCE there is no unique representation, it's a >> > fallacy to take, say one representation, and assert that the >> > components in one representation, simultaneously represent the wf. >> >> But that's an invalid inference. If there is no unique representation, >> then there is more than one representation. Some of those consist of a >> linear composition of components. You seem to infer that because there >> is no unique representation then representations in terms of components >> is wrong...but those two things are not only consistent, they are >> logically equivalent; each one implies the other. >> >> Brent >> > > No; on the contrary, I think all the representations are valid. What's > invalid > is singling out one representation and asserting the system is > simultaneously > in ALL the components of THAT representation. AG >
I wasn't clear in one or more of my previous comments, but the latter is what I meant. All representations are valid; basic linear algebra. But to ascribe ontological status to one particular set of components, when in general there exists an uncountable set, is a fallacy. I thought I illustrated that point with S's cat. AG -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d12ffd60-4ef2-4768-be47-64bb2485609d%40googlegroups.com.
