Re: Date's First Great Blunder
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:26:31 +0100
In message <c0e3f26e.0404210403.31cf5e8a_at_posting.google.com>, Tony
>> Apparently you do think that the universe revolves around humans'
>> perception of "everyday life". We are not talking about what matters
>> to humans, but whether a model matches reality. Of all the activity
>> taking place in the unverse at any one moment, things that are
>> "accurately" modelled by Newton are ESOTERIC compared to the
>> number/scope of things that are "accurately" modelled by Quantum.
>Apparently you missed the point, and apparently you haven't found a
>dictionary yet to check what the word ESOTERIC actually means.
>What the heck any of this has to do with the relational model I have
It has to do with whether there is any evidence that relational is a hum-drum or esoteric model. So far I haven't seen any evidence from relational fans either way, and my experience leads me to believe it's an esoteric model.
And if it's an esoteric model, why the heck are we using it to model a hum-drum world?
-- Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk HEX wondered how much he should tell the Wizards. He felt it would not be a good idea to burden them with too much input. Hex always thought of his reports as Lies-to-People. The Science of Discworld : (c) Terry Pratchett 1999Received on Fri Apr 23 2004 - 19:26:31 CEST