Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA05774 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 31 Jan 2002 23:34:21 GMT X-Originating-IP: [194.117.133.84] From: "Steve Drew" <srdrew_1@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: neccesity of mental memes Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 23:28:31 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F41dUrXr8wjQA61ZauO00017820@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2002 23:28:32.0156 (UTC) FILETIME=[FEF49DC0:01C1AAAE] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 07:40:28 -0800
From: "Grant Callaghan" <grantc4@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: neccesity of mental memes
> >
>Because we are using a natural, uniform and ubiquitous component of the
>universe as our stick, not something arbitrary or rooted in
>anthropomorphism. It does not matter what you call the unit of
measurement
>(since language is itself arbitrary and by mutual convention), so long
as
>your peers understand it, and it fulfills the above requirements. We
are
>not assigning a value to the protom-radius, we are naming it; it will
>remain the same length whatever we call it, and that takes the
>arbitrariness out of the referent, even though linguistic signs
themselves
>are, for the most part (excluding, say, onomatopoeic words),
irretrieveably
>arbirary.
> >
> >Steve
> >
Now we're talking the same language.
Grant
I think you left my name attached to one of Joe Dee’s posting Grant.
Just because something we have decided is a fundamentak measurement of the
universe that is suitable as a unit of measurement of the universe doesnot
make it any different to a metallic rod. The metal rod will appear to an
observer under the same conditions the same each time. How is that different
from the the radius of a proton? And this radius is not absolutely defined
that i am aware, due to the problem of the wave / particle duality (and if
you include one of my old lecturers, he described it as an energy field), so
what measurement are we on about. The truth of the matter as i see it, is
that external reality exists [my assumption - it makes life easier for me :
- ) ] but that our interpretation of it is not always up to scratch. I don’t
see that assigning a value to something as any different to nameing it.
(Some one also mentioned a 9 dimensional universe - i got the impression
they were working on 13, and that they did unfold but are not visible above
the sub atomic?)
I would appreciate some clarification,
Steve
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 31 2002 - 23:45:33 GMT