From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!news2me.ebay.sun.com!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!orfeo.Eng.Sun.COM!silber Sun May 31 19:04:38 EDT 1992
Article 5959 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!news2me.ebay.sun.com!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!orfeo.Eng.Sun.COM!silber
>From: silber@orfeo.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Silber)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: figure/grounding : ontological status of symbols
Date: 28 May 1992 20:19:23 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <l2ag2bINNagj@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
References: <1992May27.164400.18066@guinness.idbsu.edu> <1992May28.120719.29976@cs.ucf.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: orfeo

In article <1992May28.120719.29976@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>In article <1992May27.164400.18066@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@opal.idbsu.edu  
>(Randall Holmes) writes:
>> In article <1992May27.122822.18483@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu
>> (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>> [...]
>> 
>I'll have to be more careful about my phrasing.  I was trying to make
>the point that symbols can be discussed indepently of physics.  QM is

 Certainly one can discuss symbols without referring directly to physics,
 symbols, however, are NOT independent of physics (if you take 'physics' in the
 sense of 'cosmology' )  The ultimate 'grounding' of all and everything is in the
 'universe'. 'Physics'/'physical-science/mathematical-physics etc. seek to
 'comprehend' the universe, therfore they are foundational for discussions about
 'symbols' even if one does not have to make direct reference to them in order
 to speculate about symbols.
 If one believes in a 'holistic' framework for reality, viz. 'the universe',
 then it would seem contradictory to assert that 'symbols' are not also rooted there.




