>> You know where I am coming from? Where I am coming from?
>[Gordon]How do you prove the Non Physical?
What is the link? Are you suspecting I got some Natural
Number on the head after which I became a true believer
Mmh... Brett Hall is right things are the other way round.
I guess I got no apple on the head.
I am somehow skeptical about any "concrete things"
ever since (!).
People believe glass of bear exists because they have drunk
those glass and that's concrete.
I think it could appear concrete only because their brain
makes the necessary abstraction unconsciously and
But, I would like to say that the question "what is *really*
a glass of bear" leads you quickly to abstractions, from
number to Hilbert Spaces and well beyond !
Even without mentionning the possible relative taste of
the bear :o)
That's why I doubt less about numbers than about mars,
quark and other boojum. I aknowledge the persistence of
those boojum and to the ingenious invariant patterns
observers and thinkers extracts out of it, but I expect
an explanation of those things in term of arithmetical
Well the point is that I do not prove the Non Physical.
Nobody has proved the Physical either.
But I do show that with comp we don't need to postulate
a substancial physical for explaining talks on stable
appearances in immaterial machine's public discourses.
The advantage of comp is that it explains also stable
complains in machine's private diaries.
>In Nature has shown us that two different Systems of Rules can
>lead to the same Features,and the Multiverse as a whole certainly has a
>Multivalents about it.
I guess so.