Lee Corbin
>
> Colin writes
> > > > So, for subjective experience: Yes it can be an illusion,
> > > > but a systematically erroneous, relentlessly repeatable
> > > > illusion driven by measurement of the natural world where
> > > > its errors are not important - .ie. not mission fatal to the
> >
Russel writes
> > why *probabilities* emerge from squared amplitudes, I couldn't
> > tell you. I'm not sure that anyone knows---as I recall, many
> > this is related to the basis problem of the MWI (though
> > Deutsch and others say that decoherence takes care of
> > everything, though).
>
> Th
Colin writes
> > > So, for subjective experience: Yes it can be an illusion,
> > > but a systematically erroneous, relentlessly repeatable
> > > illusion driven by measurement of the natural world where
> > > its errors are not important - .ie. not mission fatal to the
> > > observer. Experiential
Lee Corbin
>
> Colin writes
>
> > ACCURACY
> > Extent to which a measurement matches an international standard.
> >
> > REPEATABILITY
> > Extent to which a measurement matches its own prior measurement.
> >
> > For example the SICK DME 2000 laser distance measurement instrument
> > has an accura
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 04:30:21PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> Your point about the squared modulus is well taken. Just why
> *probabilities* emerge from squared amplitudes, I couldn't
> tell you. I'm not sure that anyone knows---as I recall, many
> this is related to the basis problem of the MWI
Godfrey writes
> As much as I sympathise with your call for preservation of naive
> realism
Good heavens! How many times must it be said? What is going on
with people? There is a *clear* definition of "naive realism".
Try the almost always extremely reliable wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.or
Hi Bruno,
Thanks for your assent on this. I am sure that CT and AR are needed,
at some point, for your really outrageous
conclusions. But I am sure you agree that they cannot save them if the
"Yes doctor" presumption can be shot
down by itself. Right? This would save me from having to read
Hi Godfray,
I must leave my office, and I let you know just my first impression of
your last post. First I hope you will accept my apologies for having
skip unintentionally your demand for my hypotheses.
I am saying this because I actually think that it is the real
interesting and original
Hi Bruno,
Thanks for indulging my skepticism. I think I am getting a clearer
picture of what you are up to. There is only one
point in our exchange below to which I would like to respond and than
I have some unrelated comments. I will
erase the rest of the conversation to which I don't have
Le 16-août-05, à 04:59, John M a écrit :
(The original went only to Bruno's addressw)
To: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
everything-list@eskimo.com
In-Reply-To:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Bruno, your po
Chris Peck:
But subjectivity is certain.
Lee: Since the only thing that is certain is "I think therefore I am"
or
"...I am thinking", it's not a stretch to say that no worthwhile
knowledge is certain. All knowledge is conjectural. To be fair,
you should google for "Pan Critical Rational
Hi Lee,
As much as I sympathise with your call for preservation of naive
realism
and agree entirely with your opinion on the demerits of introspection
I have to take issue with half of what you say below:
-Original Message-
From: Lee Corbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...
>I'm not too sure
Hi Godfrey,
Le 15-août-05, à 21:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
[GK]
The point I am trying to make is that a lot of your back and forth
discourse on the 1st versus the 3rd person misses the
2nd person in between them! More specifically: I am quite convinced
that one good part of what we cal
Russell wrote:
*I'm using the term "concrete reality" to refer to
what some people
call "common sense reality", that there is stuff out
there,
independent of us as observers. Sometimes I might use
"objective
reality"
for the 1st person plural reality that the AP
guarantees for subsets
of observers
Lee Corbin writes:
The realist does *not* want the world to be "as it seems to be". No,
the realist focuses on the fact that a wholly independent world "out
there" exists and existed before he did. In fact, it is the subjectivists
who start calling their own unassailable introspections "realit
Colin writes
> ACCURACY
> Extent to which a measurement matches and international standard.
>
> REPEATABILITY
> Extent to which a measurement matches its own prior measurement.
>
> For example the SICK DME 200 laser distance measurement instrument
> has an accuracy of about 10mm over 150m but a
Chris writes
> I admire Descartes as a man [I would have said scientist and mathematician],
> not so much as a philosopher. I admire his method more than his results,
> he looked inwards.
He also did a tremendous amount of good work in science and math.
> Like Hume, Berkley , Locke and countless
Stephen writes
> I would like to refute your [Lee's] "common sense Realism" and
> show that it is missing the most salient point of Realism: that
> it not have any "cracks" through which anything "unreal" might
> slip.
An interestingly stated goal: it *sounds* as though you've written
as preamble
18 matches
Mail list logo
