> > Look, it's VERY simple: take as a first baby-step the notion
> > that the 19th century idea of a cosmos is basically true, and
> > then add just the Big Bang. What we then have is a universe
> > that operates under physical laws. So far---you'll readily
> > agree---this is *very* simple conceptually.
> > Next, look at this picture after 14.7 billion years. Guess
> > what has evolved? Finally, there is intelligence and there
> > are entities who can *perceive* all this grandeur.
> > So, don't forget which came first. Not people. Not perceptions.
> > Not ideas. Not dich an sich. Not 1st person. Not 3rd person.
> > NOT ANY OF THIS NONSENSE. Keep to the basics and we *perhaps*
> > will have a chance to understand what is going on.
> But both the quantum facts, and then just the comp hyp are incompatible
> with that type of naive realism.
At this level of discourse, dear Bruno, I don't give a _______
for your *hypothesis*.
Moreover, please google for "naive realism". You'll find that this
is the world view of children who have *no* idea of the processes
by which their brains are embedded in physical reality.
Since no one claims to be a naive realist, this rises to the level
But then, I'm not too surprised that the most *basic* understanding
of our world has been forgotten by some who deal everyday with only
the most high level abstractions.