Hello,
--- Joel Dobrzelewski <dobrzele.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
.
.
.
> Now, if you're going to argue that photons might
> come in fractional values -
> in the form of "probabilities", then I must
> necessarily ask...
>
> What's a probability?
>
> How does the universe perform probabilistic
> calculations?
Would probabilities exist if there were no one around
to percieve them?
>
> On its infinite analog slide rule?
>
> By flipping a coin?
>
> What's a coin? How does it fly through the air?
Does anything fly? Or does the coin exist in a
state-space which can be observed from many
perspectives, including one we call flying?
> What is air? What's a
> slide rule? What's a fraction?
>
> It's a vicious cycle. We need to get down to some
> answers. We need to be
> able to compute it.
YOu mean constrain perception to an easily calculable
space?
>
> Cellular automata do this just fine.
I think that system of being aware of things is fine
for that realm in which you need to see things, and
see things that way.
>
> Do you object to that?
I object to what I see as an attempt to constrain all
viewpoints to a particular way of seeing.
I think your idea is fine. A tool for seeing things
from a given vantage point. I'm sure there are other
vantage points worth visiting, and tools needed to see
from those perspectives as well. I don't think anyone
would arge against descretization as a tool for
seeing. I think people would complain loudly if one
insisted his way of seeing was the only way.
Robert W.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Received on Tue Jun 26 2001 - 14:53:15 PDT