On 29 Aug 2005, at 16:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Because you referred me to Deutsch's book I too a look at his own defense of the Everett interpretation and was reminded also

 of his not so passive understanding of the CT. As it turns out his whole masterplan hinges on his belief that *CT is a result of

Physics* so he is really no great help to you.

Yes sure, it is the point where if you asks David how he can defend such a revisionist form of CT, he just say that he disagrees with 100% of the mathemaéticians. Actually Deutsch's position is interesting because it illustrates the point that once you take comp seriously enough, you are forced to "physicalize" the math, for not making math more fundamental than physics.
I prefer to follow Wheeler's view that the physical laws cannot be generated in any physical way.
As for the rest of the post you turn around the pot., and adopt a tone like if I was doing something speculative, and this just illustrates what you have already confessed: you don't have study the argument I have given.  For example:

 I decrypt the above as a statement that you are NOT trying to derive QM but a more general TOE

This means you have not already grasped the main theorem in my work, although I have unsuccesfully try to give you the idea. I try one times again:
The result is that there is only one TOE compatible with comp, and it is derivable from comp. That TOE is physically complete. To verify comp, just compare that TOE (already given) with QM (currently most believed physical theory) or compare directly with the physical facts. The tests already done confirm the quantum logical aspects of nature.

Could you please stop trying to demolish theoretical works before grasping the enunciation of the main theorems? What is your goal?


Reply via email to