Re: CDR: Re: Many Worlds Version of Fermi Paradox
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Sarad AV wrote: how do you know that apples and oranges are not same or are same? Its the way you look at it. No, ever see Apple and Oranges cross-breed? -THEY- look at it that way too. So there -is- something there to the cladistic viewpoint. -- We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, Plan 9 from Outer Space [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
Re: CDR: Re: Many Worlds Version of Fermi Paradox
hi, --- Jim Choate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Sarad AV wrote: As you already see-what you say is correct for your definition of proof and axiom. Here is the fundamental error in your thinking, you are trying to argue apples and oranges. how do you know that apples and oranges are not same or are same? Its the way you look at it. Its where what ur definition of an apple and orange is -how you interpret your apples and oranges and how you see your apples and oranges. As my comments alude to, what you are doing is trying to argue geometry using two different 5th's -at the same time-. While it was certainly done historically for a considerable amount of time, that itself is a logical contradiction. There are two choices: There is no contadiction-there is more than one solution to a problem-we just have to accept that. - demonstrate the two are equivalent, and we go forward with our little game ofcourse-i am least interested in games.I am trying to understand things better. - recognize they are not equivalent, and we end the discussion because there is really no discussion to be had Your choice. I did n't say they are equivalent-simply said that there is more than one way at looking at it and there is more than one solution to a problem which are not equivalent since their *domain* is different . Regards Sarath. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: CDR: Re: Many Worlds Version of Fermi Paradox
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Sarad AV wrote: As you already see-what you say is correct for your definition of proof and axiom. Here is the fundamental error in your thinking, you are trying to argue apples and oranges. As my comments alude to, what you are doing is trying to argue geometry using two different 5th's -at the same time-. While it was certainly done historically for a considerable amount of time, that itself is a logical contradiction. There are two choices: - demonstrate the two are equivalent, and we go forward with our little game - recognize they are not equivalent, and we end the discussion because there is really no discussion to be had Your choice. -- We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, Plan 9 from Outer Space [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
