At 09:08 AM 11/7/2014, Frederik Stjernfelt wrote:
I am not sure. Much of the yet unresolved
discussion of QM have to do with deciding which
ontological commitments come with the
Schrödinger equation. As far as I have
understood, there is no scientific agreement about this. . .
HP: That is t
Mara, lists,
Thanks for this good summary of Hurford's hypothesis and Frederik's use of
it to further his dicisign argument. Still struggling to understand the
hypothesis itself, which has some problems and clearly needs some
modification if it is to be of much use in biosemiotics, Frederik offeri
Hello everyone,
Now we move on to the heart of Chapter 5: that the ventral-dorsal split of
the visual perception system corresponds to the double function of the
Dicisign. Recall that, according to Stjernfelt, this similarity between the
syntax of the Dicisign and that of the functions of these tw
Dear Howard, lists -
I am not sure. Much of the yet unresolved discussion of QM have to do with
deciding which ontological commitments come with the Schrödinger equation. As
far as I have understood, there is no scientific agreement about this (unlike
basic knowledge about iron and cakes etc.).
At 03:51 PM 11/6/2014, Frederik wrote:
Dear Howard, list
This is where our ways part.
HP: I'm not sure why. My 25 words was just trying
to sound like a nominalist. It is not my view, as
the other 700 words tried to explain.
Suppose I agree to be a realist about iron,
baking pies, round ob
(For undistorted Figure 1, see the attached.)
Gary R wrote:
"So, in a sense, can-be's (1ns) may become would-be's (110714-1)
(3ns) if the conditions were to come into existence,
and in that case, if they do they are realized in
actual lawful existence, in the lawfulness which,
seemingly, contra
