Marv,

For the most part, my biggest problem with your comments is that I usually have not a hint of what you are trying to say. You seem to be more concerned with classifying than understanding what I say. This appears me to be an indication that you think that if you get me properly classified, you will understand me.

>>>In philosophy what you are referring to is called foundationalism.>>If you see me as correct so far,> then my question is: is your foundationalist model a reductionist model in that you are reducing the laws of physics or symmetries of physics (i.e., a 'physical layer') to a foundational layer (i.e., a 'mathematical layer'), or is it non-reductionist in that it only models the 'physical layer' but does not pretend to be the most primitive respresentation? >So is correct to say that your model is a coordinate system by which to construe the 'physical layer'?>Don't you mean that reality can be effectively represented by a set of numbers?

• Get well soon! - paulm - May 4, 2001 - 02:29 UTC
• re: Get well soon! - harvey1 - May 4, 2001 - 21:28 UTC
  • We may be getting somewhere - paulm - May 5, 2001 - 00:02 UTC
  • re: We may be getting somewhere - harvey1 - May 7, 2001 - 23:04 UTC
    • We may be getting further - paulm - May 8, 2001 - 00:41 UTC
    • Another apostle for Dick :) - aurino - May 8, 2001 - 14:13 UTC
      • I'm a physicist - yanniru - May 9, 2001 - 11:49 UTC
        • Come on Richard - aurino - May 9, 2001 - 13:02 UTC
          • but not the direction of looking - yanniru - May 10, 2001 - 11:40 UTC