Hi George,

Still trying to understand you but having trouble holding my disbelieve...

Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)

Hi Godfrey

The "I" that I consider consists of a logical system that defines and coincides with the physical system that the "I" inhabits. Thus the world (the slice of the plenitude that we can observe) is anthropically constrained by the "I."

So the "I" is (1) a logical system (2) a physical system inhabited (1) and (3) the set of anthropic constraints which delimits the whole of the (non-"I") universe (?) where (I am guessing) (1) and (2) find themselves! Is this what you are saying?

So the "I" is coextensive with what I would call my body (including my brain) but not my mind (including my reasoning)?
Not sure I follow you here...

A first consequence is that physics is perfectly rational and understandable since it matches the "I." (This is a response to Einstein's question of why is the world subject to rational analysis)

A second consequence is that your logical system is the same as mine, - we share the same "I," - hence your world is the same as mine - we share the same world or perspective of the plenitude. Therefore, you and me appear to share an objective reality.

Hold on there! If all physics is reducible to "a logical system" why would there need be physics at all ? Why would you have to be the one answering Enstein's quandary? Wouldn't his "I", being the same as yours be able to answer himself? In other words: maybe your explanation of knowledge is incapable of explaining... ignorance?

Also, if I remember it correctly, logical systems have the nasty habit, once they take on the minimal complexity, to have to opt between remaining consistent or aiming for completion. This, of course, would exempt your "I" from having to be consistent, but would also invalidate your claim that "the I physics is perfectly rational is understandable" which, by the
way, is a much bigger claim than what Einstein had in mind...

Objective reality is an illusion that disappears when observers differ in their frame of reference. In this particular case, it does not exist when observers operate according to different but entirely consistent fundamental logics. In fact, such observers would have a lot of difficulty communicating since their worlds would be different slices of the plenitude.


Is that right? "...disappears when observers differ in their frame of reference."? But the "strangeness" of relativistic physics is that observers can actually compare and agree on their observations even when they have entirely different deployments in their different frames of reference! The correct physics is identifiable from these apparently orthogonal sets of data... Isn't your metaphor a bit upside down or "am "I" not intersecting your slice of plenitude?

Again, I am not trying to be entirely fascicious. You may be onto something( at least worth shooting down which is more than
I can say for a lot of today's physics).


Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

Reply via email to