4 ms·
So when you say "describing" you don't actually mean "describing", you mean "running the simulation"? That's alright then, but still leaves you with an entirely
by ugh 15y ago
So when you say "describing" you don't actually mean "describing", you mean "running the simulation"? That's alright then, but still leaves you with an entirely unjustified conclusion.
As to your second point, you brought Tiki bars up. I don't think Tiki bars feature prominently in the definitions of beaches in the scientific literature but that doesn't really matter. What matters is that the distribution of Tiki bars (and other properties they might have) is accessible to the scientific method. You can't claim that your definition of "beach" which apparently includes Tiki bars is not accessible to science (at least with the examples you gave for extending the definition).
- brudgers 15y ago>So when you say "describing" you don't actually mean "describing", you mean "running the simulation" I mean absolutely nothing of the sort. What I am talking about is the ordinary use of the word "beach" in the ordinary grammar of the English language not its use in some game in which one attempts to translate ordinary terms with "scientific" propositions based a set of logical transformations which ignore the implications of context and connotation. So long as one insists that the computer simulation is isomorphic to what it simulates, one is doomed to stay in the cave.