Stathis Papaioannou skrev:
On 3/13/07, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Not necessarily. If you draw a
diagonal on a square on a computer screen, it will be made up of a
discrete number of pixels despite what Pythagoras' theorem calculates.
Irrational in the real world
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote:
> Bent, Stathis,
>
> Suppose that space is discrete. It has some elementary unit. Let's call
> it SU.
> Suppose there are 3 of these units out there in a right triangular
> fashion( L shape)
> Then what is the distance between two distant angles? is it made up of
> s
Bent, Stathis,
Suppose that space is discrete. It has some elementary unit. Let's call it
SU.
Suppose there are 3 of these units out there in a right triangular fashion(
L shape)
Then what is the distance between two distant angles? is it made up of some
integer numbers of space unit? Pythagoras'
On 14/03/2007, at 5:59 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>> nevertheless
>>
>> I think we need more on question 1
>>
>> Questions 2 and 3 appear to have answers of sorts
>>
>> Kim Jones
>
> What kind of statement would you regard as an answer to why there
> is something rather than nothing? For example
Kim Jones wrote:
> Lurking, lurking...
>
>
> This thread started I believe with Tom's 3 magnificent questions,
> aeons ago on my birthday last year.
>
> Thankee, Tom
>
> A little refresher now:
>
>
> On 31/12/2006, at 8:25 AM, Tom Caylor wrote:
>
>> Besides the question of how meaning rel
Lurking, lurking...
This thread started I believe with Tom's 3 magnificent questions,
aeons ago on my birthday last year.
Thankee, Tom
A little refresher now:
On 31/12/2006, at 8:25 AM, Tom Caylor wrote:
> Besides the question of how meaning relates to this List, the question
> of meaning
On 3/13/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron +
> > proton because it exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its
> > components;
>
>
> Nor by any juxtaposition of its components in case of some prior
> entanglement. I
On 3/13/07, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *Not necessarily. If you draw a diagonal on a square on a computer screen,
> it will be made up of a discrete number of pixels despite what Pythagoras'
> theorem calculates. Irrational in the real world may just be an illusion.
> *
> I w
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote:
> Mathematics is just assuming some axioms and rules of inference and then
> proving theorems that follow from those. There's no restriction except
> that it should be consistent, i.e. not every statement should be a
> theorem. So you can regard a game of chess as a
Mathematics is just assuming some axioms and rules of inference and then
proving theorems that follow from those. There's no restriction except that
it should be consistent, i.e. not every statement should be a theorem. So
you can regard a game of chess as a mathematical theorem or even a Sherlo
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Le 12-mars-07, à 12:37, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
>
>
>
> OK, but it seems that we are using "reductionism" differently.
>
>
>
>
>
> Perhaps. I am not so sure.
>
>
> You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron
> + proto
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote:
> /Why? "Mathematical" means nothing but not self-contradictory.
> Sherlock Holmes stories are mathematical. That doesn't mean Sherlock
> Holmes exists in some Platonic realm.
> /
>
> Brent,
>
> What do you mean by that?
Mathematics is just assuming some axioms
Tangentially:
Brent: 'doesn't mean Sherlock Holmes exists in some Platonic
realm ...'
MP: For those who occasionally like a clever and entertaining
read unencumbered by deep social comment can I recommend the
adventures of Ms Thursday Next in 'The Eyre Affair' a novel by
Jasper FForde, and in th
Le 12-mars-07, à 16:58, John Mikes a écrit :
> Let me reverse the sequence of your post for my ease:
> The last part: "> If we accept Bruno's "we are god"<
> ">I have never said that. The most I have said in that direction, is
> that, assuming comp, the first person inherits "God"' unanmeability.
*Not necessarily. If you draw a diagonal on a square on a computer screen,
it will be made up of a discrete number of pixels despite what Pythagoras'
theorem calculates. Irrational in the real world may just be an illusion.*
I was trying to mark a distance in real world which is irrational accordin
Le 12-mars-07, à 12:37, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
> OK, but it seems that we are using "reductionism" differently.
Perhaps. I am not so sure.
> You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron +
> proton because it exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its
>
On 3/13/07, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*Why? "Mathematical" means nothing but not self-contradictory. Sherlock
> Holmes stories are mathematical. That doesn't mean Sherlock Holmes exists
> in some Platonic realm.
> *
>
> Brent,
>
> What do you mean by that? I do not get your
17 matches
Mail list logo
