On 03 Oct 2011, at 19:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/3/2011 8:43 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Let me try to be sure that I understand this comment. When you
write: they will all see the same laws are you referring to
those invariant quantities and relations/functions with respect
On 10/4/2011 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Oct 2011, at 19:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/3/2011 8:43 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Let me try to be sure that I understand this comment. When you
write: they will all see the same laws are you referring to those
invariant quantities
On 10/4/2011 10:25 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
The conservation laws come from the requirement that we want our laws to be the same
for everyone at every time and place. This is our idea of laws. I'm sure you're
familiar with Noether's theorem and how she showed that conservation of moment
On 10/4/2011 4:20 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/4/2011 10:25 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
The conservation laws come from the requirement that we want our
laws to be the same for everyone at every time and place. This is
our idea of laws. I'm sure you're familiar with Noether's
theorem and how
On 10/1/2011 9:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Oct 2011, at 02:18, David Nyman wrote:
On 30 September 2011 16:55, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
They are ontologically primitive, in the sense that ontologically
they are
the only things which exist. even
On 10/3/2011 8:43 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Let me try to be sure that I understand this comment. When you write: they will all
see the same laws are you referring to those invariant quantities and
relations/functions with respect to transformations of reference frames/coordinate
On 3 October 2011 16:43, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
[SPK]
But why some particular type of primitive rather than some other? It
seems to me, for symmetry reasons, that a truly ultimate primitive would
have no particular properties associated with it at all! I think that
On 10/3/2011 2:42 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 3 October 2011 16:43, Stephen P. Kingstephe...@charter.net wrote:
[SPK]
But why some particular type of primitive rather than some other? It
seems to me, for symmetry reasons, that a truly ultimate primitive would
have no particular properties
On 1 October 2011 04:14, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
I have been attempting to ask a similar question, but my words were
failing me. What is the necessity of the 1p? AFAIK, it seems that because it
is possible. This is what I mean by existence = []. But does this line of
On 01 Oct 2011, at 02:18, David Nyman wrote:
On 30 September 2011 16:55, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
They are ontologically primitive, in the sense that ontologically
they are
the only things which exist. even computations don't exist in that
primitive
sense. Computations
On 1 October 2011 14:50, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But UDA shows (I think) that matter and consciousness are first
person collective constructs of all the numbers.
Yes, I agree. But my general point was that even in terms of
physicalism, the way matter ordinarily appears to the
On 01 Oct 2011, at 17:42, David Nyman wrote:
On 1 October 2011 14:50, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But UDA shows (I think) that matter and consciousness are first
person collective constructs of all the numbers.
Yes, I agree. But my general point was that even in terms of
On 1 October 2011 18:07, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
To be short, only intelligible
ideas exist [only numbers and definable relations exist]. God and matter
does NOT exist, but they do exist epistemologically. And they are quite
distinct for what really exist. This does not work
On 01 Oct 2011, at 19:49, David Nyman wrote:
On 1 October 2011 18:07, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
To be short, only intelligible
ideas exist [only numbers and definable relations exist]. God and
matter
does NOT exist, but they do exist epistemologically. And they are
quite
On 30 Sep 2011, at 13:44, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/30/2011 5:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If comp +Theaetus is correct, you have to distinguish physical
existence, which is of the type []#, and existence, which is of
the type Ex ... x I will use the modal box [] and diamond
fro
On 30 September 2011 16:55, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
They are ontologically primitive, in the sense that ontologically they are
the only things which exist. even computations don't exist in that primitive
sense. Computations already exists only relationally. I will keep saying
On 9/30/2011 8:18 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 30 September 2011 16:55, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
They are ontologically primitive, in the sense that ontologically they are
the only things which exist. even computations don't exist in that primitive
sense. Computations already exists
On 9/29/2011 4:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Sep 2011, at 16:44, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/27/2011 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Sep 2011, at 13:49, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/26/2011 7:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
snip
For well-defined propositions regarding the numbers I
On 9/29/2011 10:36 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/29/2011 4:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Sep 2011, at 16:44, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/27/2011 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Sep 2011, at 13:49, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/26/2011 7:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
snip
For
19 matches
Mail list logo
