On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 10:12:20AM +0100, David Nyman wrote: > > > I always wondered about this aspect of your theory Russell. I assume that > you mean "describes under some interpretation". If so, the only available > interpretation (whether explicitly computationalist, a la UDA, or > otherwise) would have to be intrinsic to the strings themselves. Hence some > interpretative scheme or other must also be implicitly assumed. Isn't that > so? >
Interpreted by the observer. Yes, I do think the observer is reflected in the string, which is a manifestation of physical supervenience. My argument for that goes by the name of the Occam catastrophe. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Senior Research Fellow hpco...@hpcoders.com.au Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
