On 7/21/2012 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. And it is here that "conventional physics" has a problem, for to
relate observations with perceptions they rely on the physical
supervenience thesis, which does no more work when comp is assumed.
It is only a problem in that the explanatio
On 7/21/2012 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. And it is here that "conventional physics" has a problem, for to relate observations
with perceptions they rely on the physical supervenience thesis, which does no more work
when comp is assumed.
It is only a problem in that the explanation is in
Le 20-juil.-12, à 20:02, meekerdb a écrit :
On 7/20/2012 8:40 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Jason,
The problem that I see with this definition is that it makes
existence contingent and not necessary. The contingency (or
dependence in the weaker case) on the capacity of "having object
On 7/20/2012 5:06 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/20/2012 12:11 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 7/20/2012 2:02 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/20/2012 8:40 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Jason,
The problem that I see with this definition is that it makes
existence contingent and not necessary. The conti
On 7/20/2012 12:11 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 7/20/2012 2:02 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/20/2012 8:40 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Jason,
The problem that I see with this definition is that it makes existence contingent
and not necessary. The contingency (or dependence in the weaker cas
On 7/20/2012 8:40 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Jason,
The problem that I see with this definition is that it makes existence contingent
and not necessary. The contingency (or dependence in the weaker case) on the capacity of
"having objective properties that could be studied by independe
On 7/20/2012 11:15 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Stephen P. King
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
On 7/20/2012 12:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Stephen P. King
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
On 7/19/20
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> On 7/20/2012 12:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
>> On 7/19/2012 7:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Stephen P. King
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To fix
On 7/20/2012 12:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Stephen P. King
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
On 7/19/2012 7:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Stephen P. King
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
To fix a ty
On 7/20/2012 12:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Stephen P. King
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
On 7/19/2012 7:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Stephen P. King
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
To fix a ty
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> On 7/19/2012 7:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
>> To fix a typo
>>
>> On 7/19/2012 3:46 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
>>
>> Dear Bruno,
>>
>> I need to slow down and just addres
On 7/19/2012 7:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Stephen P. King
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
To fix a typo
On 7/19/2012 3:46 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I need to slow down and just address this question of your as
it s
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> To fix a typo
>
> On 7/19/2012 3:46 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
> Dear Bruno,
>
> I need to slow down and just address this question of your as it seems
> to be the point where we disconnect from understanding each other.
>
> On 7/19/
To fix a typo
On 7/19/2012 3:46 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I need to slow down and just address this question of your as it
seems to be the point where we disconnect from understanding each other.
On 7/19/2012 10:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
At this stage I will ask you to de
14 matches
Mail list logo
