Title: Re: Rucker's Infinity, Tegmark's TOE, and Cantor's Ab
Dear John,

Bohm's statement is quite coherent with his philosophy.

He believes in a unique material reality (although he does
not believe in a wave packet reduction, particles follow
only one branch of the universal superpositions, with Bohm).
So Bohm is obliged to abandon comp (cf comp entails the many
world, even without QM).
I say more on Bohm in my CC&Q paper (see my URL).
Bohm's attitude illustrates the link between
COMP and the many-idea.
Remember that people like Everett or Deutsch follows
comp (which doesn't mean they have seen all the consequences).

In its "implicate order" Bohm is explicitely against comp
or even AI.

I like very much Bohm. He is clear and honest in its investigations.
Abandoning comp is natural for a Quantum Mechanician who want
keep ONE (substantial) universe.

Bruno Marchal

       ---Original message---

Dear Bruno,
 
you wrote:
 
> In a nutshell I would say that natural numbers exists and no more
> (like Pythagoreans!) ....<
 
How do you relate to David Bohm's observation that "numbers
do NOT exist in nature, only as the products of the human mind"?
(I wouldn't mix rhythm or quantity with numbers, the digital constructs)
 
(I did not want to burden the list. If you like and find it opportune
in your line of discussion, you can include this into a list-reply.
I don't care.)
 
John Mikes
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: Rucker's Infinity, Tegmark's TOE, and Cantor's Absolute Infinity

> Hi Dave,  welcome to the list!
> S N I P

Reply via email to