Bruno, I am far from having even studied the old Greeks, I read ABOUT them,
not THEM. I looked up Theaetetus and found:
"It is important to understand the full implications (and ambiguity) of
Theaetetus' response that "knowledge is simply perception." (151e) The word
perception (aisthesis) could mean at this point, to Theaetetus, either
perception of concrete objects with the senses or perception of ideal
objects (such as mathematical relations) with the mind. "
I agree with this part. I need a continuation.
I use two names in this respect: "perception" as the activity of the senses
into the brain with possible storage, the other: "apperception" which is the
mindful stabilization of the 'perceived'. The second sentence in the quote
comes close to my second process, ("with the mind") but still does not imply
the difference I need.
I need it to the 'information - as absorption (acknowledgeing) of the
perceived difference' - vs just letting pass it. (Difference in this (my)
nomenclature = existence, vs. nirvana or singularity).
Knowledge may be the next phase: to have the apperceived info ordered and
What is your take?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 2:17 AM
Subject: Re: Implications of MWI
Le 29-avr.-05, à 00:41, Russell Standish a écrit :
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 04:00:10PM -0400, John M wrote:
>> Jesse, thanks for the explanation you gave to Norman. I did not want
>> to ask
>> something similar, so I benefit from it as well.
>> My question however is a more fundamental one:
>> why are we stuck in a MWI or its infinitely expanded format, where
>> systems, functions, ideation, whatever are unrestricted and maybe
>> different from ours here, CORNERED into a time-concept of this (our)
>> little universe?
>> Same to all principles expresed amply about dimensions, comp, space,
>> Q-considerations, even reality and ourselves?
> 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).
If by TIME you mean the axiom in arithmetic saying that each natural
number has a successor then I agree.
If by TIME you mean anything related to geometry, or real numbers, or
physics, or psychology then I disagree.
> 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 :)
I'm open to any question. Don't hesitate. Thanks for your interest. The
Theaetetus in on the net at many places.