Russell wrote:

>"The reason for TIME is the need for a dimension in which to make
comparisons, to measure differences. Computationalism (Bruno's working
hypothesis implicitly assumes TIME). With TIME, the Anthropic Principle and
PROJECTION (or equivalently Evolution or Bostrom's SSA), the quantum
Multiverse is the only place observers can live. Apparently Bruno gets a
similar result from a slightly different set of basic assumptions - I say
apparently, because I haven't understood the last part of his argument, the
bit about Thaetetus's model of knowledge. But I will be looking back at his
thesis soon - I find my ability to understand these arguments has improved
over time :)"<

Not too impressive.
IOW it means that we construct the 'world' according to our capability 'to
make comparisons, to measure (!) differences".
I would not state that the Q-MV is the ONLY place... before I know ALL other
(known and unknown) possibilities. "The only place we know of"?
Since IMO an 'observer' can be anything that absorbs information, I don't
find it impressive where such can or canot "LIVE". It may not.

Time, as you implicitly 'admit' is necessary to maintain the limited
conditions set for the ambient theories. I "preach" (sorry, it is my beef,
however unfortunately not developed into a full theory) the openness of the
mind for allowing things we did not YET(?) discover
or don't find 'reasonable' in our anthropocentrized circumstances.
But so are Q-suicide, white elephant etc. - ideas we condone.
I have difficulties to think in terms of atemporality, but that does not
constitute an obligatory universality of "a" time in all environments.
"Everything" does not include any "except atemporality".
It may be terra incognita, but so was even most of the terrestrial geography
some centuries ago.
I do not argue against your (and other listmembers') positions, they are
'scientific' and resourceful, just not 'exclusive' IMO.

John M

----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: Implications of MWI

Reply via email to