For more general discussion of thought experiments, see Sorensen (1992).
It is hard to overemphasize the impact of this point on subsequent discussions of thought and its relation to language.
In the discussions of thought experiments, he and Bohr would always quantify uncertainties on a case-to-case basis by choosing some parameters which happened to be relevant to the experiment at hand.
In fact, even though Heisenberg had taken Kennard's inequality as the precise formulation of the uncertainty relation, he and Bohr never relied on standard deviations in their many discussions of thought experiments, and indeed, it has been shown (Uffink and Hilgevoord, 1985; Hilgevoord and Uffink, 1988) that these discussions cannot be framed in terms of standard deviation.
Some years later he even admitted that his famous discussions of thought experiments were actually trivial since "… if the process of observation itself is subject to the laws of quantum theory, it must be possible to represent its result in the mathematical scheme of this theory" (Heisenberg, 1975, p. 6).
We agree that it is an important question and have included a discussion of our thoughts on this topic in the Discussion section of the revised manuscript.
[A good, and brief, discussion of physiocratic thought. An excellent introduction. In particular, deals with the flexibility of physiocratic ideas].
The authors include a detailed discussion of the thought processes behind a psychiatric evaluation and an overview of the still-tentative theories of causation.
There is discussion of the thought provoking points raised.
The iteration is highly valued in business ethics research because the discussion and compilation of thoughts and new views enrich the conclusion [3].
This allows the characters free and easy discussion of their sexual thoughts and exploits without one dirty word.
