DM, But if on one side we have TiTs and on the other our experience of TiTs don't we have a gap. It's a bit like Bohr saying that science isn't about nature it is about what we can say about nature. It would seem that a proper understanding of things would have to include both what we can say about nature and what we can say about our ability to say things about nature.
One of the problems we have in dealing with QM is that it is outside of what we are equipped by nature to understand. We have neither the sensory apparatus nor the experience to deal with it. We are left trying to express it in terms we can understand, rather like trying to figure out how to draw a cube on a piece of paper only harder. Krimel ------------------------- Krim You need to have the subject on one side and things in themselves on the other to see formalise the gap over which you need to find a sure path. No gap no skepticism. Heidegger and Wittgenstein addressed SO dualism because they wanted to get over skepticism. DM --------------------------- >> [Krimel] >> You only get SOM when you relax your skepticism long enough to allow >> objects >> into the picture. > > DM: I'd suggest, you only get skeptism if you adopt SOM. > > [Krimel] > I am not following you on this one. Surely you are not saying that SOM is > the only world view that invites critical thinking. My point was that > solipsism is a form of extreme skepticism. > moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
