From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:37:34 +0200
Subject: Re: subjective reality
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 don't really agree with Deutsch on this, by the way...
I prefer to follow Wheeler's view that the physical laws cannot be
generated in any physical way.
...but I don't think this is correct about Wheeler either. Sure he
talked a lot about "if from bit" but never developed into
anything usable. The origin of the physical laws is an interesting
philosophical problem on its own but, if your suggestion
is that they can be derived from math alone is somewhat spurious
because the laws of physics are already mathematical!
The main problem is that the physical laws are only one part of the
information you need to build observable physics. The
other are the boundary conditions, the symmetry-breaking accidents and
such which really don't have an obvious place in the
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:
You ARE doing something speculative whether you admit it or not! And I
don't really have to study your argument because
it is derived from premises that, you already admitted, are
incompatible with the conclusions you claim.
> 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 unsuccessfully try to give you the idea. I try one
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.
To claim that a TOE is physically complete you have to know ALL of
Physics which is more than anyone in this world claims
to know, least of all, me! So who am I to disagree? (;-)
Could you please stop trying to demolish theoretical works before
grasping the enunciation of the main theorems? What is your goal?
My goal was to try and understand whether there is a grain of anything
interesting in what you claim you have done.
Since you say above both that I have "already grasped the main
theorem" and than demand that I grasp it before I
demolish it I can only conclude that it is... self-demolishing!
Now it appears to me that you are trying, at all costs (including
logic), to save the remnants of the strong-AI thesis in some
religious cultist form ("The Grand Programmer"-vision), thus your
constant references to faith and theology. This, incidentally
may be a better bet than actually doing science since there is better
funding in the "intelligent design" camp these days, so maybe I wished
you more luck than you need...
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.