Re: What's wrong with this?

2010-09-19 Thread 1Z
On 19 Sep, 07:30, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > Well, I thought that reductionism could help an engineer. I don't think anyone said that -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googl

Re: What's wrong with this?

2010-09-19 Thread 1Z
On 19 Sep, 07:34, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > on 18.09.2010 23:35 Brent Meeker said the following: > > > > > On 9/18/2010 12:19 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > >> on 18.09.2010 21:09 Brent Meeker said the following: > >>> On 9/18/2010 9:20 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the

Re: Definiteness of Meaning (was: A superposition in QM is just due to a choice of basis?)

2010-09-19 Thread 1Z
On 18 Sep, 22:20, "Stephen P. King" wrote: > Hi Peter and Friends, > > -Original Message- > From: everything-list@googlegroups.com > > [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of 1Z > Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 8:16 AM > To: Everything List > Subject: Re: A superposition

Re: What's wrong with this?

2010-09-19 Thread John Mikes
Evgeniy, I may be the one agreeing with your sentence 1Z did not hear so far. Maybe he is right. Let me try to explain why I am congruent with your suggestion: *Reductionism *(as I identify it, - not congruent with the classical definitions - is the process in which the ongoing conventional science

Re: What's wrong with this?

2010-09-19 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi
John, I am not sure if I have a particular position. I am a chemist by background, well I was doing all the life simulation only. Actually I am comfortable with reductionism ideas, as many scientist are. Yet, I do not understand something. Say chemistry starts that H2 has a single bond, 02

Re: What's wrong with this?

2010-09-19 Thread John Mikes
Evgeniy, thanks for the reply. With H2o you use all those expressions the millenia-long reductionist development came up with and modified them according to newer learned details. (Bond?) You asked "What do these terms mean?" Chmistry is NOT part of physics, especially not the polymer branch in wh

Re: What's wrong with this? (a side question)

2010-09-19 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi John, Bruno: thanks for the "I think" in your text below - also: I cannot argue against your negative assessement about atheism - who IMO require a 'God" to deny. You know my shortcomings to equate physics with other domains of hearsay belief systems, like theology (as religion main

Re: What's wrong with this?

2010-09-19 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Stephen, OK, did you make sense of the idea of representing Integer with a sort of equivalence class that have members that are the arithmetic generators or creators or acts that equal examples of the number? We can think of 1 in the Platonic sense as the class of