@Plinz oh, doesn't it? to whom?
-
-
Replying to @ActsOfPotential
@MXORN My point, exactly. Mudformation looks very computational to me.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ActsOfPotential
@MXORN How the fuck can you SEE potentialities?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ActsOfPotential
@Plinz things just seem to have turned out that way.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ActsOfPotential
@MXORN Your ontology uses stuff that you "infer", i.e. parts of the map, as primary constituents of the territory.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ActsOfPotential
@MXORN Computation is a priori, synthetic, and minimal (i.e. necessary and sufficient). Your stuff is not, which makes it ugly.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Replying to @ActsOfPotential
@MXORN What are you? Some kind of mud-geek?
12:38 PM - 20 Dec 2015
from Cambridge, MA
1 reply
0 retweets
0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.