-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
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
Platonic world.

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 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.

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...

Best regards,


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

Reply via email to