Re: on formally indescribable merde

From: George Levy <GLevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 10:22:59 -0800

Marchal wrote:

> ..Positive integers exists. Nothing else.

This is a integercentric statement if I ever saw one. And Kroenecker was an old
fuddy daddy. If I was a negative number I would be deepely offended! Why not say
negative number exist and nothing else? In fact all you need is the null set to
begin the number description. The set comprising the null set could represent
one. That set which holds the "null set" and the "one set" could represent "two,"
and so on...

Even with the null set I have my doubt. Why not use the Not(null set) ..... which
is the plenitude eh??? :-)

> Jacques Mallah wrote

> > Leave Everett alone, he is dead and can't defend himself against your
> >abuse of his name.
>

Who said Everett is dead? Or Elvis as a matter of fact? Have you checked the
plenitude?

>
> Now I have the definitive evidence that you or your ancestor are
> french, Monsieur Jacques Mallah, le roi Lion.

Oui, je suis d'accord!!! :-)

>
> > In any case, we see once again that the fabled "first person point of
> >view" has absolutely nothing to do with the subject under discussion.
>
> It is true that physics and science has evolved through the abandon
> of the first person (Galileo, Einstein).

Wow! Hold it. Be careful. One could argue that the opposite has actually
happened. In a conjugate fashion to the objective movement, the abandonment of a
geocentric system forced us to view each individual observer as the center of the
universe. With Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein we have moved toward a full
relativistic point of view. The MWI gives us the chance to go all the way and
places each "I" at the center. The trend is actually to accept the first person
point of view!

Jacques Mallah wrote

> >Anything real can be stated in objective terms.

Real? Hard to define what is real.

>
> >>Some time ago "merde" was considered as very vulgar, but since then
> >>it has been overthrown by "shit", or worse ... "Merde" seems almost
> >>polite in comparison.
> >
> > So does it mean feces?
>
> You mean faeces ?
>

Are faeces real ?


George
Received on Wed Mar 07 2001 - 11:37:33 PST