On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Sep 2013, at 11:49, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Sep 2013, at 10:37, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Bruno Marchal
I've just been reading a book that I procured at a school fete called
Science, Order and Creativity, by David Bohm and David Peat.
I had read Wholeness and the implicate order in my youth, which on
the whole was confusing and unsatisfying. In many ways, this book is
too. Yet, I can't quite shake
On 17 Sep 2013, at 19:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/17/2013 1:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Sep 2013, at 19:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/16/2013 5:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With computationalism, it is more easy and clear. What exists, at
the ontological level, is what make true a sentence
On 17 Sep 2013, at 19:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 12:40:27 PM UTC-4, freqflyer07281972
wrote:
Thanks Craig, you've articulated quite well a number of difficulties
in approaching the hard problem, IMHO. I was reading this article in
the SEP and thought of
On 17 Sep 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
So you are suggesting that a thing like broken glass is made of
numbers
I was just saying that things are not made up of things. A
broken glass is NOT made of number. That
On 17 Sep 2013, at 19:46, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 6:07:23 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2013 5:53:01 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13,
On 18 Sep 2013, at 04:12, chris peck wrote:
Hi John
Exactly, Newton and Darwin and Einstein didn't need Popper to
tell them how to get knowledge out of nature, and absolutely no
change in how science was done happened in 1934, the year Popper's
book was published. None whatsoever.
On 18 Sep 2013, at 05:03, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, September 15, 2013 3:54:24 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Sep 2013, at 04:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, September 13, 2013 9:42:54 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Sep 2013, at 18:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On 18 Sep 2013, at 11:43, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 17 Sep 2013, at 11:49, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 15 Sep 2013, at 10:37, Telmo Menezes wrote:
--- Original Message ---
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
Sent: 19 September 2013 12:08 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 18 Sep 2013, at 04:12, chris peck wrote:
Hi John
Exactly, Newton and Darwin and Einstein didn't need
Hi Bruno
We don't have to accept Popper's demarcation principle in order to understand
that it has genuinely been influential or that Popper's arguments are used
within scientific circles.
I haven't read the paper you mention but many people have taken
falsificationism to task. Kuhn; Lakatos;
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:12 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.comwrote:
You say that this demarcation principle has had no influence in science.
Within Psychology however, for better or worse, Psychoanalysis is now
perceived as a faintly absurd artifact of history. No one gets hot under
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Name a number relation that does not involve a computation or some other
process!
It is difference between a number j used as a name for a program, like in
the arithmetical relation phi_j(k) = r,
A arithmetical relation is a
If someone told me that I was going to be hung, I can assure you I would be
expecting it every day. I wouldn't bother with any logical analysis.
(The unexpected exam, on the other hand...)
On Thursday, 12 September 2013 21:33:24 UTC+12, telmo_menezes wrote:
Time for some philosophy then :)
On 9/18/2013 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I naturally took an extreme example to make my point.
I do that often too, but here it weakened your point. Everyone (except Sunday
philosopher) agree on 0, and its successor.
Also some serious mathematicians are finitists.
The Meaning of Pure
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 18 Sep 2013, at 11:43, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Sep 2013, at 11:49, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Bruno Marchal
On 9/18/2013 10:24 AM, John Clark wrote:
Should other theories (quantum loop gravity) which potentially offer more
scope
for falsifiability receive a greater proportion of the available resources.
So far quantum loop gravity is no better at making testable predictions than string
On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 8:26:35 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Sep 2013, at 19:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 12:40:27 PM UTC-4, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Thanks Craig, you've articulated quite well a number of difficulties in
approaching the
On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 9:14:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Sep 2013, at 19:46, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 6:07:23 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Saturday,
19 matches
Mail list logo
