From: John K Clark (johnkc@well.com)
Date: Mon Aug 04 1997 - 22:34:59 MDT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thu, 31 Jul 1997 Hara Ra <harara@shamanics.com> Wrote:
>And thus the confusion. So, let's try a few definitions on here:
>Real - anything one says is same....
If you say so.
>PReal - Physically Real. Representable by a one to one mapping
>onto the set of all physical particles in the Universe.
I see, something is real if it's physical and it's physical if it's real.
I have do have a question however, are the Peano Postulates physical
particles and if not why not?
>Mreal - Representable by a functioning brain.
Is Mreal a subset of PReal or is the functioning of the brain not physically
real?
>I think the notion of "Real" is a dead end, with no real
>consequences.
I think the notion of "Klognee" is a dead end, with no klognee consequences.
In another post you said:
>If one adheres to the notion that a wave function is strictly a
>means of calculating probabilities of events, this confusion
>vanishes.
If so and it's meaningless to ask what slit the electron went through, and it
all just comes down to what I can calculate, then what does that say about
the idea that there are things in the world independent of me, and what does
that say about your 3 different types of "reality"?
John K Clark johnkc@well.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
iQCzAgUBM+ar2303wfSpid95AQHhRATvSuJczZez9j0sSdyJkSbCul6hCyzieNIn
xvB4wD3XldOGdmRJR9no8Icl/ltYb02NK6MoNQWKjzh+6xTdr3TrTNOnJxm3IDOb
Co2ZRzu0DdlO/M5b17XXLns9MYh7aL4qTtQymKwA50yhLmF2qCecrtnBIGSXK5hD
pplon8GdTVTA9K0iPhD0N9XJgDMxeXgWD7tOe60WiFlFTkaWHM0=
=/XJ4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:41 MST