Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id FAA06438 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Fri, 1 Feb 2002 05:49:35 GMT Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 21:43:51 -0800 Message-Id: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116) X-Originating-Ip: [188.8.131.52] From: "Joe Dees" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: neccesity of mental memes Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
> "Steve Drew" <email@example.com> firstname.lastname@example.org Re: neccesity of mental memesDate: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 23:28:31 +0000
>Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 07:40:28 -0800
>From: "Grant Callaghan" <email@example.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
>>(since language is itself arbitrary and by mutual convention), so long
>>your peers understand it, and it fulfills the above requirements.† We
>>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
>>are, for the most part (excluding, say, onomatopoeic words),
>Now we're talking the same language.
>I think you left my name attached to one of Joe Deeís 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 donít
>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,
Because in one case our measurement referent is artificial and arbitrarily chosen and by mutual convention (kinda like non-onomatopoeic words), and in the other case the measurement referent is natural and actual; the smallest uniform length we can discover in the universe (which as the added benefit that evey length would have to be in integral multiples of the measurement referent - no fractions or remainders could exist).
>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)
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 01 2002 - 05:58:08 GMT