> >David McFadzean wrote:
> >Here's a related question for all observers: Which side of
> >the debate is making the stronger claim? The ones who say
> >AT does exist or the side that claims AT does not exist?
I think the ones who say that AT doesn't exist are making an
extremely strong claim that requires serious backing up if you
define AT as I have (being the inseparable companion of OR). If
they define AT as a description of OR formulated in English (or
some such language) then the claim is not particularly strong.
Tad Wrote:
> I beg everybody to say what they call TT and I am sure we can find some
> common ground to continue our very important and interesting discussion.
> I hope we can agree to use one of the *existing* words for TT.
I think that you defined TT (or my understanding of it) fairly
well and concisely. I can't recall the exact wording but it went
something like "the property of objective reality that is
consistent". I'd say this is part of my AT but AT also includes
more mundane information such as the fact that I am less that 8
feet tall. Perhaps TT is simply physical laws.
Jason
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy University of Calgary
jmcvean@acs.ucalgary.ca http://www.ucalgary.ca/~jmcvean
"I am as close to you as the veins in your neck when I say to you, in
my whispering lisp, I, too, began as a boy." Mark Richard - Fishboy
---------------------------------------------------------------------