[time 784] Re: [time 781] RE: [time 779] Re: [time 778] Re: Noumenon and Phenomenon => Mind-Body problem.

Hitoshi Kitada (hitoshi@kitada.com)
Sun, 19 Sep 1999 00:01:42 +0900

Dear Lance and Stephen,

The word "falsifiable" is a difficult one for me. I tried to find it in my
on-line English-Japanese dictionary, but there is no such word. Instead I
found the word "falsify" that means: "A falsifies B" is "A proves that B is
wrong." From this I imagine "falsifiable" means: "A theory T is falsifiable"
is "There is a possibility that someone is able to prove that the theory T is
wrong." Is this interpretation correct? Or are there any other and/or deeper
meanings in the word "falsifiable."

Also I am not sure what is thought as falsifiable in this correspondences
between you. I.e., I am not sure what is the issue of this arguments. For me,
the objects that each of you address the word "falsifiable" look different
between you. Could you explain in the easier and/or more understandable

Best wishes,

----- Original Message -----
From: Lancelot Fletcher <lance.fletcher@freelance-academy.org>
To: Stephen P. King <stephenk1@home.com>
Cc: <time@kitada.com>; Paul Hanna <phanna@ghs.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 1999 7:17 AM
Subject: [time 781] RE: [time 779] Re: [time 778] Re: Noumenon and Phenomenon
=> Mind-Body problem.

> Dear Stephen,
> > Here I go again! ;-) We are getting back to the problem
> > that Vaughan
> > Pratt addresses in his paper ratmech.ps
> > (http://boole.stanford.edu/chuguide.html#ratmech) The relation between
> > noumenon and phenomenon is reflected in the mind-body problem to which a
> > solution is addressed. I am unhappy that the paper is very difficult to
> > comprehend as it is written in the language of theoretical computer
> > science, but I am working hard to translate it over for our use.
> > (BTW, I
> > understand Lance's objections, but we do need some falsifiability in our
> > models of the world!)
> I hope you won't think I am being unfair, but the claim that a model or
> theory is falsifiable is a strong claim. Indeed, it might be a falsifiable
> claim with respect to Pratt's paper. Therefore, as proof, I request that
> you cite at least one falsifiable proposition contained in Pratt's paper
> or, if you are unable to do so, explain how it makes sense to describe
> Pratt's theory as falsifiable.
> Lance Fletcher, President
> The Free Lance Academy Foundation
> http://www.freelance-academy.org
> lance@interactive.net

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:41 JST