Hi Russell,

Still have not had a chance to look up your book
but hope to do so shortly.

Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)

-----Original Message-----
From: Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:44:00 +1000
Subject: Re: subjective reality

On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 12:41:23PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> [GK]
> 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.

[RS]
I've never seen Bruno admit that! I've only seen you claim that,
without proof.


[GK]
Than read again! This is from a previous post of Bruno's:
------------
On 23 Aug 2005, at 16:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> [GK]
>
> I believe that YD is incompatible with the whole formalism of QM which
>
> I don't quite think is simply reducible to Unitary Evolution plus Collapse, by the way.
>
> But if you put it that way, yes, it is the conjunction of both that does it
>
> (and entanglement, of course!)



[BM]
>This I knew. The collapse is hardly compatible with comp (and thus YD). Even Bohm de Broglie theory, is incompatible with YD.
--------

[GK]
Since QM is generally believed to be a part of physics and Bruno claims to derive the whole of it from YD
it seems that my statement is accurate.

Now if his claim was that what he derives is not QM but "QM without collapse" that would be different but he seems to claim instead (Bruno, correct me if I am wrong) that "QM without collapse" or at least the Everett version of it was introduced to accommodate YD! This I find quite bizarre both as an historical claim or as something that would help his "program" since, if that were true, he would not
have derived anything new!

>
> [GK]
> 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? (;-)

[RS]
It is a claim, not a proof. Such a claim is readily falsifiable, by
means of counterexamples when such are discovered.

[GK]
I am afraid that in Physics, at least, things don't work quite that way
and I think you know that. New TOEs are proposed every other day
and they are judged on the basis of their assumptions and claims
before anybody bothers to look for counterexamples. Many of these
theories are just poorly put together.

I think there may be something of merit and interest in what Bruno is
trying out (though my doubts are growing) and that is why I am engaging
him. There are many ways of being wrong and some are more interesting
than others.

[GK]
>
> 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,
>
> Godfrey

[RS]
Schmidhuber does the "Great Programmer" thing, not Marchal. And I
suspect Schmidhuber is being tongue-in-cheek anyway. Marchal uses
"faith" and "theology" in different ways to everyday use - he has
technical meanings for these terms, to which the everyday meaning is
but an approximation.

[GK]
Maybe you are right about that and maybe I have been unfair with his "theotropic
verbiage" ; but don't you think there is already something weird about
needing to cast technical meanings to those terms? What for?


--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics 0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

Reply via email to