Greetings,
Here's my Rupee 1 on the connection between abstract models and reality;
Although it is ofcourse debatable, I hold that what we call reality is
our minds' understanding of our sensory perceptions. Thus the notion
of (our) reality depends on:
1. The nature of mind
Let's assume
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 02:30:47PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Are there reason to believe that (physical, or local) time could have a
scale invariant fractal dimension (between 1 and 2, bigger?) ? Does it
make sense ?
I don't know if this is relevant, but Laurent Nottale published a
Brent Meeker writes:
Here's my $0.02. We can only base our knowledge on our experience
and we don't experience *reality*, we just have certain
experiences and we create a model that describes them and
predicts them. Using this model to predict or describe usually
involves some calculations
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 06:09:39PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On that note I'm not sure Wheeler's description is the same. In my idea of
the calculus all there is is the sheets of paper. There are no symbols (no
intrinsic representation). There are intrinsic rules of formation and
Hi Aditya,
I do not see anything in your reasoning that I would disagree with. ;-)
It seems that you subscribe to a concrete interpretation of mathematics,
which is one that I take on occasion. I merely wish to comprehend the ideas
of those that take a Pythagorean approach to mathematics;
Forwarded on behalf of Brent Meeker:
On 24-Jul-05, you wrote:
Brent Meeker writes:
Here's my $0.02. We can only base our knowledge on our experience
and we don't experience *reality*, we just have certain
experiences and we create a model that describes them and
predicts them. Using
Title: Message
AP: The question of whether two chunks of matter are the samesurely
has little to do with specifications.
BH:You just did it again. Would you still say "surely" if in
yourstatementyou replace "chunks of matter" with "souls" or
"spirits" or "logicallypossible
7 matches
Mail list logo
