On 10/6/2011 12:04 PM, 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 helpful to grasp elementary ideas about
numbers for *some* people, but they might be embarrassing
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 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 w
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 observa
On 09 Oct 2011, at 16:46, David Nyman wrote:
On 9 October 2011 14:37, Bruno Marchal 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-per
On Oct 8, 7:21 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 2011/10/8 Craig Weinberg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 8, 12:12 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Craig Weinberg
> > wrote:
> > > >> Of course all the parts of the car determine how it will move! You can
> > > >> pred
On Oct 9, 12:09 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 12:12 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >> wrote:
> >> >> Of course all the parts of the car determine how it will move! You c
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.
>> The
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 a
On 9 October 2011 14:37, Bruno Marchal 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 can have.
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 t
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 help
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
