Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 12/13/04
- Next message: JPL Verhey: "Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man"
- Maybe in reply to: Lester Zick: "Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics"
- Next in thread: JPL Verhey: "Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:43:38 GMT
On 13 Dec 2004 12:54:54 -0800, "stlbl" <wjgreen1@verizon.net> in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>My main point is that the word "equal", with all its secular meanings,
>is probably a poor choice for "=", which you have well described as an
>approximate relationship, or at least a qualified relationship.
Most words of any fundamental significance are. And the more we try
to specify them the vaguer they get. Maybe there's a conservation of
vagueness law at work akin to the uncertainty principle.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: JPL Verhey: "Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man"
- Maybe in reply to: Lester Zick: "Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics"
- Next in thread: JPL Verhey: "Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|