Thanks for answering all my mails, but I see you send on the list only
the one where you disagree. Have you done this purposefully? Can I
quote some piece of the mail you did not send on the list? I will
Also, for this one, I did not intend to insult you. Sorry if it looks
Le 26-juil.-05, à 23:31, Lee Corbin a écrit :
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
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.