From: Delmar England (delmar@ct.net)
Date: Tue Oct 14 1997 - 15:51:22 MDT
At 11:15 AM 10/13/97 +0000, you (D. Broderick) wrote:
>At 12:47 PM 10/12/97 -0400, a lexical expert wrote:
>
>>As for, > and even though counterfactual processes are built into the basic
>> >ontological substrate of reality (quantum mechanics; the
>>Schrodinger > >equation and linear evolution).
>>
>>I haven't heard of this before either. What is it supposed to mean? I don't
>>know and considering terminology like "counterfactual processes" seriously
>>doubt that anyone else does either. [...]
Counterfactual conditional statements are the basis of the logic of
>scientific thought experiments and play an important role in modal logic.
>They take the general form `if it were the case that p - which it is not -
>then q'.
>
As I said, I'm not familiar with the source of the statement and
expressions. Can the apparent contradiction be reconciled? Maybe. Maybe
not. My bet is still on maybe not. When I see "counterfactual", I see
definitively, "opposed to fact." That which is opposed to fact is false.
When I connect false to "processes", I arrive at false processes. When I
note that false means non existing, I arrive at no processes even as the
"counterfactual processes" are declared to be processes. Very strange word
games and highly suspect.
>>Definitions are my forte.
>
>Really. One might doubt this.
If this is a challenge, bring it on. You might wish to start with "The
Anatomy Of Language" and The Principle Of Epistemology. If you can refute
these, I will much appreciate it. If you can't, you're in for a long day.
Delmar England
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:02 MST