Hi George,
At 15:33 03/06/04 -0700, George Levy wrote:
Bruno,
I reread your post of 5/11/2004 and it raised some questions and a
possible paradox involving the idea that the notion of first
person is absolutely not formalizable. (see below, for a
quotation from your post)
GL wrote
It may be that
George,
I am afraid there is a point which I should still comment in your post.
BM:But then it looks you don't like any more the 3-person discourse,
why?
GL: The adoption of the first person as a frame of reference (my
terminology) implies the ultimate relativization.
OK, but then why are
Bruno, do we have an agreed-upon identification
"what" to call an observer? I may heve missed it on the list, if yes. Your post
below speaks about the topic, but I don't see some conclusion: is it the
unformalizable first person concept, is it upon formal, or nonformal
considerations? Isthe
GL wrote:
How can the notion of "objective reality" be defined?
The question (in non-physics terms) is IMO a series of oxymorons:
"Objective" anything (unless we imply unknow(n)/able features) is
restricted to whatever the mind has interpreted upon impact(?) it received. Eo
ips'objective' is
At 11:04 04/06/04 -0400, John M wrote:
Bruno, do we have an agreed-upon identification what to call an
observer? I may heve missed it on the list, if yes. Your post below speaks
about the topic, but I don't see some conclusion: is it the unformalizable
first person concept, is it upon formal,
5 matches
Mail list logo
