On 08 Oct 2011, at 20:15, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/8/2011 5:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Oct 2011, at 19:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/7/2011 6:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Indeed with comp, or with other everything type of theories, the
problem is that such fantasy worlds might be too much
On 08 Oct 2011, at 20:51, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Oct 2011, at 13:14, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Oct 2011, at 21:59, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Oct 2011, at 21:00, benjayk wrote:
I don't see why.
Concrete objects can be
On 08 Oct 2011, at 21:00, benjayk wrote:
I'm not saying that arithmetic isn't an internally consistent logic
with unexpected depths and qualities, I'm just saying it can't turn
blue or taste like broccoli.
Assuming non-comp.
There is no assumption needed for that. It is a category error
On 9 October 2011 14:37, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Can you find any number(s) flying around
that has any claim to an internal view right now?
Yes. Although the number per se, like programs and brains, will refer only
to the relations that the 1-person associated with that number
In the Bruno - Brent exchange I enjoyed Bruno''s remarks Usually I agree
with BrentM.
Probability (in my terms) means a distribution within infinite bounds, no
specifics for probable/non probable.
The 'fantasy-world' of physics is a time-related explanatory Procrustean bed
for those partly (maybe
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Oct 2011, at 21:00, benjayk wrote:
I'm not saying that arithmetic isn't an internally consistent logic
with unexpected depths and qualities, I'm just saying it can't turn
blue or taste like broccoli.
Assuming non-comp.
There is no assumption needed for
On Oct 9, 12:09 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:12 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
Of
On Oct 8, 7:21 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/8 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Oct 8, 12:12 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
Of course all the parts of
On 10/9/2011 3:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Depends on what you mean by the whole of physics.
Good question. When physics is inferred from observation, there is no conceptual mean to
distinguish physics from geography, except for a fuzzy level of generality.
But UDA explains where the
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Oct 2011, at 20:51, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Oct 2011, at 13:14, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Oct 2011, at 21:59, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Oct 2011, at 21:00, benjayk wrote:
I don't see why.
benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Oct 2011, at 20:51, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Oct 2011, at 13:14, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Oct 2011, at 21:59, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Oct 2011, at 21:00, benjayk wrote:
11 matches
Mail list logo
