not quite Father Inire's mirrors . . .

entonio at gmail.com · 09 Jun 2011, 08:46 · from 2011-June.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: entonio at gmail.com (entonio at gmail.com)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 09:46:32 +0100
Subject: (urth) not quite Father Inire's mirrors . . .
In-Reply-To: <4DF05B12.8040006 at io.com>
References: <8FCA404E8BAE024CA6CED299DA8223DB09CFDC2694 at VA3DIAXVS291.RED001.local><4DEF63B7.9080104 at verizon.net><ED24FF6F77DF4AB9B6C35A54F58E23A7@jill>
	<BANLkTikuy1ZaFx0F43OAxpDGGEZg=dE0rA at mail.gmail.com>
	<6C1B0158DB5143958C93711D380E29C4@jill>
	<4DEFE703.5030805 at gmail.com> <4DF05B12.8040006 at io.com>
Message-ID: <0DCB2A52-E381-487A-9B7A-4E079FCC3DD7 at gmail.com>

No dia 2011/06/09, ?s 06:33, Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com> escreveu:

> On 6/8/2011 4:17 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
>> but the idea I have from the current and not-so-current panorama is  
>> that
>> there isn't a single established theory that hasn't big holes in it -
>> meaning that even as they are useful for Technological Progress, one
>> shouldn't be completely shackled to their Fundamental Implications.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here.

That we may merrily make use of E = m c^2 or calculate the  
distribution of electrons around an atom regardless of the importance  
we attach to the philosophy of relativity or of the quanta.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net