James Higgo wrote:

>I don't see the need for alternative theories. And like Liebnitz's monads,
>each containing an entire world, there is no need for communication between
>observer moments.

Hard for me to swallow that literally. My question for you and Fritz
Griffith: how do you define observer moment, *precisely* ?

>It would be nice to derive the laws of physics from WAP but I am not sure
>that is possible, ...

But if my work is correct, it should not only be possible, but it is
necessary (from a logical point of view).

>...or that it would make us happier.

This is a curious remark. In front of questions, solutions makes people
happier (in general). Of course you can also forget the questions.

Certainly pure contemplation is fine. Unfortunately it is
not really in fashion in our short term overproductive world ...

<sigh>

Bruno


Reply via email to