Le 27-juil.-07, à 23:01, John Mikes a écrit :
> Bruno, I will "Wiki" the Church thesis - now it is too hot around here.
> Besides: your "slip" is showing (if you know this US-expression):
> "...the most universal physics capable of being conceived."
> Physix is a human figment, as we try to exoka
Bruno, I will "Wiki" the Church thesis - now it is too hot around here.
Besides: your "slip" is showing (if you know this US-expression):
"...the most universal physics capable of being conceived."
Physix is a human figment, as we try to exokain (and conceive?) certain
partially observed phenomena
Thanks for your gentle remarks. I will comment your last remark.
Le 27-juil.-07, à 02:59, John Mikes a écrit :
> Bruno,
> thanks for your detailed reply to my 6-09-07 post which I read only
> 7-26-09 for stupid reasons: I fell into a list with 100+ posts a day -
> many political and very informa
Le 26-juil.-07, à 00:16, Tom Caylor a écrit :
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Le 08-juin-07, à 20:17, Tom Caylor a écrit :
>>
>>
>>> I should respond to your response. I'm in a busy pensive state
>>> lately, reading Theaetetus (as you suggested on the Incompleteness
>>> thread) along with Protagora
Bruno,
thanks for your detailed reply to my 6-09-07 post which I read only 7-26-09
for stupid reasons: I fell into a list with 100+ posts a day - many
political and very informative - and it took my time and mental capacity.
Also 2 other lists fleured up in topics I was involved strongly so when I
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 08-juin-07, à 20:17, Tom Caylor a écrit :
>
>
> > I should respond to your response. I'm in a busy pensive state
> > lately, reading Theaetetus (as you suggested on the Incompleteness
> > thread) along with Protagoras and some Aristotle (along with the dozen
> > other bo
Le 09-juin-07, à 22:38, John Mikes a écrit :
> Bruno;
>
> how about adding to Tom's reality survey the anti Aeistotelian:
> Reality is what we don't see?
OK. That is how we could sum up Platonism.
> We "get" a partial impact of the 'total' and interpret it 1st person
> as our 'reality'
Bruno;
how about adding to Tom's reality survey the anti Aeistotelian: Reality is
what we don't see?
We "get" a partial impact of the 'total' and interpret it 1st person as our
'reality', as it was said some time ago here (Brent?) "perceived reality"
what I really liked . Then came Colin with hi
Le 08-juin-07, à 20:17, Tom Caylor a écrit :
> I should respond to your response. I'm in a busy pensive state
> lately, reading Theaetetus (as you suggested on the Incompleteness
> thread) along with Protagoras and some Aristotle (along with the dozen
> other books I'm always reading...) in th
Tom Caylor wrote:
...
> The above does not require physical reality, but only concepts that we
> can think about looking inward (eyes closed view). But even though it
> is "only" conceptual, my point is that we are taking a "leap of faith"
> even when we talk about 1+1=2, classifying an infinite
On May 25, 6:55 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le 25-mai-07, à 02:39, Tom Caylor a écrit :
> > On May 16, 8:17 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> >> 0) historical background
>
> >> ARISTOTLE: reality = what you see
> >> PLATO: what you see = shadows of shadows of
Le 25-mai-07, à 02:39, Tom Caylor a écrit :
>
> On May 16, 8:17 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I take the opportunity that the list is calm to send a first
>> approximation of a possibly extendable post which addresses the
>> beginning of the background needed for the
Le 24-mai-07, à 19:48, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh a écrit :
> Hi Bruno,
>
> Thank you for the information. I understand these parts for the others
> it seems I need to search in archives of the
> list for some keywords that I do not understand. I'm not an old
> member.
No problem. You can always ask
Bruno,
I have a criticism to your argument for teleportation.
in the third step, Before the teleportation to cities A and B, you're
assuming an uncertainty of first person in appearing in one of those cities.
Suppose it to be A. *Where does this asymmetry come from?* I as the first
person have bee
On May 16, 8:17 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I take the opportunity that the list is calm to send a first
> approximation of a possibly extendable post which addresses the
> beginning of the background needed for the interview of the universal
> machine on the physical la
Hi Bruno,
Thank you for the information. I understand these parts for the others it
seems I need to search in archives of the
list for some keywords that I do not understand. I'm not an old member.
I just wanted to say, most of links in
your page lead to nowhere!(Error), It would be nice if you fi
Hi Mohsen,
Le 22-mai-07, à 12:20, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh a écrit :
> Hi Bruno,
>
> My sixth sens says you're talking about something important :) but I
> don't get it.
Note that it could help me if you could be a little more specific. OK I
see another post of you.
> It could have been of
Hi Bruno,
My sixth sens says you're talking about something important :) but I don't
get it.
It could have been of much more interest, if you could elaborate, or provide
us with some references for each part of your argument.(Beginning from the
'OBVIOUS IMPORTANT QUESTION' it becomes vague for me)
Hi,
I take the opportunity that the list is calm to send a first
approximation of a possibly extendable post which addresses the
beginning of the background needed for the interview of the universal
machine on the physical laws.
It also addresses some point relevant for discussing the link "fo
19 matches
Mail list logo
