On 08/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well of course I agree with you in this case. 'Election' is a human
construct. That's why it was a horrifyingly unfortunate typo on my
point. The point is that if you try to apply the same reasoning to
everything, you'll end up saying
On May 8, 4:22 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have now given three clear-cut exmaples of a failure of
reductionism.
(1) Infinite Sets
But there is no infinite set of anything.
Says who? The point is that infinite sets appear to be
On May 8, 6:03 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, but the theory is our idea of that partial match and is a human
construct. As a human idea, the theory is something separate. But the
objective reality of nature (whatever it is) is not something separate to
the
Le 08-mai-07, à 04:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Say what!! this is not a valid analogy since the laws of physics are
absolutely the fundamental level of reality, where as dsecriptions of
chimpanzee behaviour are not.
What makes you so sure. This is a physicalist assumption, and it has
Every creation hypotheses, instead of every computation
or every mathematical structure.
I favor a variant of the everything idea, which I would like
to call the every creation approach. In some sense it
creates every computational moment. Computations are
not required as fundamental
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 8, 4:06 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 08/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Silly spelling error in my last post - I meant 'electrons' of course.
Let avoid talk of 'electrons' then, and talk about 'Quantum Wave
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 8, 3:56 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'The Laws of Physics' don't refer to human notions (they certainly
are not regarded that way by scientists
They are by the scientists I know.
The *knowledge* we have of the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 8, 4:22 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have now given three clear-cut exmaples of a failure of
reductionism.
(1) Infinite Sets
But there is no infinite set of anything.
Says who? The point is that infinite
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 8, 6:03 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, but the theory is our idea of that partial match and is a human
construct. As a human idea, the theory is something separate. But the
objective reality of nature (whatever it is) is not
On May 9, 5:59 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So in the case of useful concepts there has to be a partial
match between the information content of the concepts and the
information content of reality. This means we can infer properties
about reality
On May 9, 6:08 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 8, 4:22 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have now given three clear-cut exmaples of a failure of
reductionism.
(1) Infinite Sets
But there is no
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 9, 6:08 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 8, 4:22 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have now given three clear-cut exmaples of a failure of
reductionism. (1) Infinite Sets
But
12 matches
Mail list logo
