Bruno, Going back to the discussion a few days ago, I agree with the value of the UDA as an idea worthy of development, as you are doing. In fact it seems to be the only idea on the table that I'm aware of that provides some explanation for the 1-indeterminacy of QM and also gives insight into why the most elegant or simplest explanations of observations in nature tend to be the correct explanations. My earlier suggestion regarding the popularity of your ideas was not intended to be a criticism. To the extent I understand you I find myself in agreement with many of your ideas. Regarding the view of everything as mathematical object, it seems this has an element of truth to me, but it also seems to possibly miss something important. As Hawking said, what is it that breathes fire into the equations? Perhaps a better view is the reduction of everything to information, versus mathematical object, as some have suggested in recent publications? A quick search for a definition of information came up with this: 1) that which reduces uncertainty. (Claude Shannon); 2) that which changes us. (Gregory Bateson). Interesting in this context, maybe, to look at it that way. The view of everything in the context of information perhaps leaves open the role of intelligence/consciousness in a fundamental explanation. Danny Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi John, |
- Re: belief, faith, truth danny mayes
- Re: belief, faith, truth Bruno Marchal
- Re: belief, faith, truth Bruno Marchal
- Re: belief, faith, truth Kim Jones
- Re: belief, faith, truth Bruno Marchal
- Re: belief, faith, truth Bruno Marchal
- Re: belief, faith, truth Bruno Marchal
- Vimalakirti Machines Bruno Marchal
- Re: Vimalakirti Machines daddycaylor
- Re: Vimalakirti Machines Bruno Marchal
- Re: Vimalakirti Machines Bruno Marchal