but I prefer to think of physics as a collection of models, models
that map the territory, but are never the territory itself.
who's to say that there even is a territory or what it is?
It seems to me that we are all presupposing some vague notion of
reality to begin with, a notion as
nevertheless, you guys are brilliant and I'm glad to join the genuine
thinking. genuine thinking is the most radical activity on earth.
On Jun 30, 11:15 pm, Constantine Pseudonymous bsor...@gmail.com
wrote:
but I prefer to think of physics as a collection of models, models
that map the
On 6/30/2011 11:15 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:
but I prefer to think of physics as a collection of models, models
that map the territory, but are never the territory itself.
who's to say that there even is a territory or what it is?
It seems to me that we are all presupposing some
On 01 Jul 2011, at 08:15, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:
but I prefer to think of physics as a collection of models, models
that map the territory, but are never the territory itself.
who's to say that there even is a territory or what it is?
We assume this. Science start from theories,
Bruno,
It is simpler to assume that we do have a relation with reality. If not you
fall in solipsism.
This doesn't work for me, we can go into this more deeply point by point,
but suffice it to say that reality is not something separate from us
people always make this mistake we are
On 01 Jul 2011, at 09:27, B Soroud wrote:
Bruno,
It is simpler to assume that we do have a relation with reality. If
not you fall in solipsism.
This doesn't work for me, we can go into this more deeply point by
point, but suffice it to say that reality is not something separate
from
Bruno, can you go a little deeper into what you mean by this prime
matter that you're skeptical of.
On Jul 1, 2:38 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Jul 2011, at 09:27, B Soroud wrote:
Bruno,
It is simpler to assume that we do have a relation with reality. If
not you
On 01 Jul 2011, at 12:10, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:
Bruno, can you go a little deeper into what you mean by this prime
matter that you're skeptical of.
It is the idea that there is a fundamental reality made of some stuff
having some fundamental ontology. It is mainly the primary
well honestly, this is a extremely foreign view then the one I'm use to
very sci fi seeming but interesting and worthy of exploration none the
less.
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 4:10 AM, Bruno Marchal tmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Jul 2011, at 12:10, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:
On 01 Jul 2011, at 14:47, B Soroud wrote:
well honestly, this is a extremely foreign view then the one I'm use
to
You mean that you believe we are not Turing emulable. That is quite
sci. fi. But why not. Then what is your theory of mind?
very sci fi seeming
I am not sure what is
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 3:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/11/2011 7:51 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
Instrumentalism, anyone?
I'll have a helping. And I'll also note that instrumentalism with a pinch
of common sense is as good as it gets.
Common sense? What is this common sense
Instrumentalism, anyone?
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.12395,y.2011,no.3,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx
The range of phenomena physics has explained is more than impressive;
it underlies the whole of modern civilization. Nevertheless, as a
physicist travels along his (in
On 6/11/2011 7:51 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
Instrumentalism, anyone?
I'll have a helping. And I'll also note that instrumentalism with a
pinch of common sense is as good as it gets.
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.12395,y.2011,no.3,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx
The
On 11 Jun 2011, at 16:51, Rex Allen wrote:
Instrumentalism, anyone?
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.12395,y.2011,no.3,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx
The range of phenomena physics has explained is more than impressive;
it underlies the whole of modern civilization.
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 3:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/11/2011 7:51 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
Instrumentalism, anyone?
I'll have a helping. And I'll also note that instrumentalism with a pinch
of common sense is as good as it gets.
Common sense? What is this common sense
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 11 Jun 2011, at 16:51, Rex Allen wrote:
Instrumentalism, anyone?
It is not because a theology fails that we have to abandon all theologies.
That would lead indeed to instrumentalism, and this would kill all
16 matches
Mail list logo
