Re: The Road with no Branches argument
From: 1Z (peterdjones_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/02/04
- Next message: Norman Megill: "Re: (Not quite) Cantor's diagonal proof"
- Previous message: Josh Purinton: "Re: (Not quite) Cantor's diagonal proof"
- In reply to: Milan: "Re: The Road with no Branches argument"
- Next in thread: Milan: "Re: The Road with no Branches argument"
- Reply: Milan: "Re: The Road with no Branches argument"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 2 Nov 2004 07:58:45 -0800
"Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2uo1usF2d47ceU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> "1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fd762132.0411010659.47b5ccc2@posting.google.com...
> > "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2uicrfF2bh69dU1@uni-
> >
> > > Classical mechanics is completely deterministic.
> >
> > But the universe isn't, which is one of the reasons why classical
> mechanics
> > was superseded. It survives only as a useful approximation, so you can't
> > argue to determinism -- even effective determinism at certain levels --
> from it.
>
> But that wasnt the point, was it?
What was ?
- Next message: Norman Megill: "Re: (Not quite) Cantor's diagonal proof"
- Previous message: Josh Purinton: "Re: (Not quite) Cantor's diagonal proof"
- In reply to: Milan: "Re: The Road with no Branches argument"
- Next in thread: Milan: "Re: The Road with no Branches argument"
- Reply: Milan: "Re: The Road with no Branches argument"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|