luding remarks:Realism/anturealism:
Laws of nature?
Bob -- fis is rejecting my e-mails as spam, so I thoubht I would send this
to you. If you reply, you can send it to fis. Thanks!
STAN
I will react below to Bob's staement:
>On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Guy A Hoelzer wrote:
>
>> I doubt w
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Guy A Hoelzer wrote:
> I doubt we disagree in substance here, but I would take issue with the
> statement that "there are no laws for biology in the same sense as the
> laws of physics", because I think the laws of physics apply in all
> realms. In other words, the laws of ph
Hi Bob,
I doubt we disagree in substance here, but I would take issue with the
statement that "there are no laws for biology in the same sense as the laws
of physics", because I think the laws of physics apply in all realms. In
other words, the laws of physics are not limited to physics in an
exc
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Andrei Khrennikov wrote:
> If we follow the line of Arne of realism/antirealism, then what should
> we say about LAWS OF NATURE? I think that we would come to the
> conclusion that there is no such laws at all. Such a conclusion is not
> astonishing in the light of modern view
Dear Collegues,
Thank you for intensive reply to concluding part of our discussion on
classical and quantum information which was finally transformed in
essentially more general discussion on meaning of information and
realist\'s dilemma. Finally, after reading all replies, I am not su
