Selector for content?/code in monospaced font
in [CSS]
|
Prev: Need some help with a styles page
Next: Newbie question
From: dorayme on 14 Feb 2010 15:19 In article <slrnhngff1.7m2.spamspam(a)bowser.marioworld>, Ben C <spamspam(a)spam.eggs> wrote: > > If we abandon this perspective, we can also say that just one case of > > something can prove a rule (as against Hume). > > I think Hume would be OK with it if you exhaustively demonstrated the > rule in 100% of all possible cases, which is what we'd be doing, in all > one of them. If you talk *all possible cases* this brings in possible universes (other than *this* universe). Does it not? The argument being that the way a thing could be, but is not, is in a possible universe that is not ours; if it was in ours, it would be the case and not merely a possibility.) -- dorayme
From: Ben C on 14 Feb 2010 15:59 On 2010-02-14, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article <slrnhngff1.7m2.spamspam(a)bowser.marioworld>, > Ben C <spamspam(a)spam.eggs> wrote: > >> > If we abandon this perspective, we can also say that just one case of >> > something can prove a rule (as against Hume). >> >> I think Hume would be OK with it if you exhaustively demonstrated the >> rule in 100% of all possible cases, which is what we'd be doing, in all >> one of them. > > If you talk *all possible cases* this brings in possible > universes (other than *this* universe). Does it not? The argument > being that the way a thing could be, but is not, is in a possible > universe that is not ours; if it was in ours, it would be the > case and not merely a possibility.) In the strict sense of Universe there really can only be one, so it includes all possible "universes".
From: dorayme on 14 Feb 2010 16:35 In article <slrnhngp03.7m2.spamspam(a)bowser.marioworld>, Ben C <spamspam(a)spam.eggs> wrote: > On 2010-02-14, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > In article <slrnhngff1.7m2.spamspam(a)bowser.marioworld>, > > Ben C <spamspam(a)spam.eggs> wrote: > > > >> > If we abandon this perspective, we can also say that just one case of > >> > something can prove a rule (as against Hume). > >> > >> I think Hume would be OK with it if you exhaustively demonstrated the > >> rule in 100% of all possible cases, which is what we'd be doing, in all > >> one of them. > > > > If you talk *all possible cases* this brings in possible > > universes (other than *this* universe). Does it not? The argument > > being that the way a thing could be, but is not, is in a possible > > universe that is not ours; if it was in ours, it would be the > > case and not merely a possibility.) > > In the strict sense of Universe there really can only be one, so it > includes all possible "universes". Is there a strict sense? It may be that there is no more sense to this than there is to the class of all classes. As I understand it, there is this physical universe we live in with its physical space. And then there is logical space. Logical space is not *in* our universe, it is not the sort of thing that is. In logical space are all the possible universes. Just as logical space is not *in* the universe we actually live in, neither are possible universes. They are not the sort of things that can be in "part of" relationships. These are my first pre breakfast impressions on this matter, for what they are worth. -- dorayme
From: Ben C on 15 Feb 2010 03:59 On 2010-02-14, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article <slrnhngp03.7m2.spamspam(a)bowser.marioworld>, > Ben C <spamspam(a)spam.eggs> wrote: > >> On 2010-02-14, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> > In article <slrnhngff1.7m2.spamspam(a)bowser.marioworld>, >> > Ben C <spamspam(a)spam.eggs> wrote: >> > >> >> > If we abandon this perspective, we can also say that just one case of >> >> > something can prove a rule (as against Hume). >> >> >> >> I think Hume would be OK with it if you exhaustively demonstrated the >> >> rule in 100% of all possible cases, which is what we'd be doing, in all >> >> one of them. >> > >> > If you talk *all possible cases* this brings in possible >> > universes (other than *this* universe). Does it not? The argument >> > being that the way a thing could be, but is not, is in a possible >> > universe that is not ours; if it was in ours, it would be the >> > case and not merely a possibility.) >> >> In the strict sense of Universe there really can only be one, so it >> includes all possible "universes". > > Is there a strict sense? It may be that there is no more sense to > this than there is to the class of all classes. What's wrong with the class of all classes (so long as they're allowed to include themselves)? > As I understand it, there is this physical universe we live in > with its physical space. And then there is logical space. Logical > space is not *in* our universe, it is not the sort of thing that > is. In logical space are all the possible universes. If the possible universes are in logical space, is the actual universe not in it too? So the whole of logical space might be the Universe (or at least the largest known part of it). > Just as logical space is not *in* the universe we actually live > in, neither are possible universes. They are not the sort of > things that can be in "part of" relationships. > > These are my first pre breakfast impressions on this matter, for > what they are worth.
From: dorayme on 15 Feb 2010 17:56
In article <slrnhni351.318.spamspam(a)bowser.marioworld>, Ben C <spamspam(a)spam.eggs> wrote: > On 2010-02-14, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > In article <slrnhngp03.7m2.spamspam(a)bowser.marioworld>, > > Ben C <spamspam(a)spam.eggs> wrote: > > > >> On 2010-02-14, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> > In article <slrnhngff1.7m2.spamspam(a)bowser.marioworld>, > >> > Ben C <spamspam(a)spam.eggs> wrote: > >> > > >> >> > If we abandon this perspective, we can also say that just one case of > >> >> > something can prove a rule (as against Hume). > >> >> > >> >> I think Hume would be OK with it if you exhaustively demonstrated the > >> >> rule in 100% of all possible cases, which is what we'd be doing, in all > >> >> one of them. > >> > > >> > If you talk *all possible cases* this brings in possible > >> > universes (other than *this* universe). Does it not? The argument > >> > being that the way a thing could be, but is not, is in a possible > >> > universe that is not ours; if it was in ours, it would be the > >> > case and not merely a possibility.) > >> > >> In the strict sense of Universe there really can only be one, so it > >> includes all possible "universes". > > > > Is there a strict sense? It may be that there is no more sense to > > this than there is to the class of all classes. > > What's wrong with the class of all classes (so long as they're allowed > to include themselves)? > OK, nothing - as long as they are allowed to do this. How happy would we be with a notion of a universe that is a part of itself that is smaller than itself? If it was not smaller than itself, there would be no room for the many other possible universes that are smaller than it. > > As I understand it, there is this physical universe we live in > > with its physical space. And then there is logical space. Logical > > space is not *in* our universe, it is not the sort of thing that > > is. In logical space are all the possible universes. > > If the possible universes are in logical space, is the actual universe > not in it too? Yes, it is. But it is not in the physical space of the logical space. There is no physical space in logical space. The way a something *is in* a logical space is a different way altogether to the way a something *is in* a physical space. Each universe has its own space and none are, according to one line of thought, connected spatially. The argument being that if they were, they would not be separate universes. > So the whole of logical space might be the Universe (or > at least the largest known part of it). > You can call logical space the Universe if you like. But it is a different kind of thing to the universe we live in. > > Just as logical space is not *in* the universe we actually live > > in, neither are possible universes. They are not the sort of > > things that can be in "part of" relationships. > > -- dorayme |