Hal Ruhl a écrit :
Hi Georges:
Hi Hal,
I was responding to Bruno's comments. However, I
would have the same response to your
position. Why that selection?
I wrote could. This means that it *could* be that all else be
wihtin (and identical to) the world of numbers. Indeed, it could
Georges, your post is on the level, I am not G
I am still in common sense with my feeble
thinking-tool.
Which leaves me with a question - please see inserted.
(I erase the rest of the lengthu discussion)
John M
--- Georges Quenot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John M a écrit :
Bruno wrote:
Le 08-mars-06, à 18:14, John M a écrit :
Bruno wrote:
What can be said about numbers is that it is
impossible to explain what numbers are to someone who
does not already knows what they are...
I will talk about what numbers do, not 'are'
..If a TOE does not implicitly or explicitly
--- Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 08-mars-06, à 18:14, John M a écrit :
Bruno wrote:
What can be said about numbers is that it is
impossible to explain what numbers are to someone
who
does not already knows what they are...
I will talk about what numbers do,
John M wrote:
Georges, your post is on the level, I am not G
I am still in common sense with my feeble
thinking-tool.
Sorry, I am not a native english speaker, I don't understand
what on the level can mean (and especially with quotes).
In don't understand either what you mean by G.
I
Bruno wrote:
So the divine intellect of the Vimalakirti Machine will contains all
proposition of the form:
~Bwhatever:
more example:
~B(an asteroid will not hurt earth in 2102)
~B(an asteroid will hurt earth in 2102)
~B(1+1 = 4)
~B(1+1 ? 4)
~B(PI is rational)
~B(PI is not rational)
Hi Georges:
The key division of my list of possible properties of objects is:
[empty [read the Nothing]:all other properties [read my All[perhaps
the Everything]]]. The Nothing is incomplete [there is a meaningful
question it must answer but of course can not] and the All is
complete [the
7 matches
Mail list logo
