Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science

Liste des GroupesRevenir à s math 
Sujet : Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science
De : ttt_heg (at) *nospam* web.de (Thomas Heger)
Groupes : comp.ai.philosophy sci.math sci.physics.relativity
Date : 17. Apr 2026, 07:59:24
Autres entêtes
Message-ID : <n4e3ggFd71uU3@mid.individual.net>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
Am Montag000013, 13.04.2026 um 17:38 schrieb The Starmaker:
Thomas Heger wrote:
>
Am Sonntag000012, 12.04.2026 um 19:29 schrieb The Starmaker:
Thomas Heger wrote:
>
Am Samstag000011, 11.04.2026 um 19:52 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
On 4/11/2026 3:33 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/11/2026 05:23 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 4/11/2026 8:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/10/2026 10:41 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
Natural and science make an oxymoron, sorry.
>
>
Science is "natural" like numbers are "natural",
since for "first principles" and "final cause"
that according to "science" that those are "science",
and here, "logic".
>
Your arm waving won't help, natural and
science make an oxymoron.
>
>
If it's not natural, then it's synthetic.
The only reason people think science is synthetic
is because they were told some vague reasoning
about paradoxes and the limitations of sense,
>
Why don't monkeys have any science?
>
>
They have, but not yet have invented the printing press.
>
TH
>
Well, how did the monkies come up with the Complete Works of Shakespeare
then?
>
Monkeys cannot speak very well.
>
But some gorillas have learned to 'speak' with hand signs.
>
But that is difficult to print, anyhow.
>
Possibly you could teach a gorilla to use a printing press, but I have
doubts about their possibility to write, if the gorilla cannot speak.
>
But maybe a system based on pictograms could be a way to allow the apes
to express their emotions, transfer that to some printable form and
subsequently squeeze it on paper.
>
TH
>
...
 You obvisoluly never heard of...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
  look at the picture of a monkey who cannot speak but can type...
Actually I did and heard about the 'infinite monkey theorem' before.
But that idea is based upon randomness, while speaking means actually the opposite.
Most humans think, that apes could not produce non-random expressions.
But that ain't the case.
In fact monkeys are quite clever beasts and can produce very sophisticated things with their minds.
What they can't do, however, that is actually speaking, because they don't have the organs to produce these specific sounds we use in language.
But monkeys can actually 'speak' by other means, like with hand signs or by pointing at signs on a computer screen.
TH

Date Sujet#  Auteur
5 Apr 26 * Theatheory: super-theory and natural science34Ross Finlayson
5 Apr 26 `* Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science33Ross Finlayson
6 Apr 26  `* Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science32Ross Finlayson
6 Apr 26   `* Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science31Ross Finlayson
8 Apr 26    +- Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science1Ross Finlayson
8 Apr 26    +* Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science28Ross Finlayson
8 Apr 26    i`* Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science27Ross Finlayson
11 Apr 26    i +* Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science18Ross Finlayson
11 Apr 26    i i`* Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science17Ross Finlayson
11 Apr 26    i i +- Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science1Ross Finlayson
11 Apr 26    i i `* Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science15Maciej Woźniak
11 Apr 26    i i  `* Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science14Ross Finlayson
11 Apr 26    i i   +- Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science1Ross Finlayson
12 Apr 26    i i   +* Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science4Ross Finlayson
12 Apr 26    i i   i`* Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science3Maciej Woźniak
12 Apr 26    i i   i `* Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science2Maciej Woźniak
12 Apr 26    i i   i  `- Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science1Maciej Woźniak
12 Apr 26    i i   `* Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science8Thomas Heger
13 Apr 26    i i    `* Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science7Thomas Heger
17 Apr 26    i i     `* Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science6Thomas Heger
17 Apr 26    i i      +- Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science1Maciej Woźniak
17 Apr 26    i i      `* Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science4Ross Finlayson
17 Apr 26    i i       +* Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science2x3
18 Apr 26    i i       i`- Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science1Ross Finlayson
18 Apr 26    i i       `- Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science1Thomas Heger
12 Apr 26    i `* Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science8Ross Finlayson
13 Apr 26    i  `* Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science7Ross Finlayson
15 Apr 26    i   `* Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science6Ross Finlayson
18 Apr 26    i    `* Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science5Ross Finlayson
18 Apr 26    i     `* Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science4Ross Finlayson
20 Apr 26    i      `* Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science3Ross Finlayson
21 Apr 26    i       +- Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science1Ross Finlayson
1 May17:11    i       `- Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science1Ross Finlayson
9 Apr 26    `- Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science1Chris M. Thomasson

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal