At 22:25 11/06/04 -0700, George Levy wrote:
We agree on most things except on
the terms relative and absolute. How strange that we should disagree
precisely on those terms! This is the proof that the meaning of these
terms is relative to our mental states and that our frame of reference
must be
Hi Bruno
As a variation of my last post, I would like to use your teleportation
experiment rather than Q-suicide to illustrate the First and Third
Person concept, in a manner that parallels Einstein's scenario in which
two observers in different inertial frames of reference observe that the
At 11:58 09/06/04 -0700, George Levy wrote:
snip
I don't understand. To give you an objective response you force me to
look up the dictionary:
OK. Note that I agree with John that Vocabularies usually list
the historical common sense versions of obsolete world views. But
I understand the move and
Bruno Marchal wrote:
GL wrote:
A first person
perception is
a subjective or relative experience.
A third person perception is an objective or
absolute experience.
Of course I would say
A first person perception is a subjective experience,
and
then an absolute one (in the
John M wrote:
George wrote June 09, 2004 2:58 PM:
...
I don't understand. To give you
an objective response you force me to look up the dictionary
Dangerous exercise. Vocabularies usually list the historical
common sense versions of obsolete worldviews. Do ou have
At 17:50 05/06/04 -0700, George Levy wrote:
Bruno
I have read your post maybe five or six times, my hair getting grayer and
grayer everytime. This subject is undoubtedly your profession and you are
an expert at it but I have a lot of trouble following you. Nevertehless, I
have a good feeling to
At 11:44 05/06/04 -0400, John M wrote:
Dear Bruno, you made my day.
your explanation which I asked for ( I mean a short, concise plain
language identification.) is such that I even hesitate to
try to follow it.
You should at least try, and *then* hesitate to continue; or better
you continue until
Bruno Marchal wrote:
At 17:50
05/06/04 -0700, George Levy wrote:
Let's me see if I can convince you to bridge
the gap and maybe take the relative formulation as a starting point.
Like Socrates, let me start with one question. How can you possibly
know to begin with this particular
rom:
George Levy
To: Everything List
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 2:58
PM
Subject: Re: First Person Frame of
Reference
Bruno Marchal wrote:
At 17:50 05/06/04 -0700, George Levy wrote:
Let's me see if I can convince you to bridge the
gap and maybe take the rela
Hi John, Hi George, hello all,
Thanks for the answers. I will comment soon, but I am giving oral exams
all the days of this weeknot even the time to trash the spam ...
Don't forget to look at the Transit of Venus tomorrow (8 june), if you
can. Here is a link to cities from which you can see
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: First Person Frame of Reference
At 11:04 04/06/04 -0400, John M wrote:
Bruno, do we have an agreed-upon identification what to call an
observer
Bruno
I have read your post maybe five or six times, my hair getting grayer
and grayer everytime. This subject is undoubtedly your profession and
you are an expert at it but I have a lot of trouble following you.
Nevertehless, I have a good feeling to my stomach that you appear to be
on the
Hi George,
At 15:33 03/06/04 -0700, George Levy wrote:
Bruno,
I reread your post of 5/11/2004 and it raised some questions and a
possible paradox involving the idea that the notion of first
person is absolutely not formalizable. (see below, for a
quotation from your post)
GL wrote
It may be that
George,
I am afraid there is a point which I should still comment in your post.
BM:But then it looks you don't like any more the 3-person discourse,
why?
GL: The adoption of the first person as a frame of reference (my
terminology) implies the ultimate relativization.
OK, but then why are
Subject: Re: First Person Frame of
Reference
Hi George,At 15:33 03/06/04 -0700, George Levy
wrote:
Bruno,I reread your post
of 5/11/2004 and it raised some questions and a possible paradox
involving the idea that the "notion of first person is absolutely not
V gave to the arithmetic human error: ...8x7 = 65... which points
to Germanto be right:
8x7 = 6 und 5zig. He did not write 37 or 143 - Just for the fun of
it. Excuse)- JM
- Original Message -
From:
George Levy
To: Everything List
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 6:33
PM
Subject: F
At 11:04 04/06/04 -0400, John M wrote:
Bruno, do we have an agreed-upon identification what to call an
observer? I may heve missed it on the list, if yes. Your post below speaks
about the topic, but I don't see some conclusion: is it the unformalizable
first person concept, is it upon formal,
Bruno,
I reread your post of 5/11/2004 and it raised some questions and a
possible paradox involving the idea that the "notion of first
person is absolutely not formalizable." (see below, for a quotation
from your post)
GL wrote
It may be that using the observer as starting points will
18 matches
Mail list logo
