Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Norman, My background is more engineering and physics than mathematics and I do share some of Norman misgivings. Some of it has to do with terminology. For example the term "COMP hypothesis" does not carry any information. Would it be more appropriate to rename it as an invariance, equivalence or conservation law? For example would it be appropriate to call it "invariance of consciousness with (change in physical) substrate?" George --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- |

- Re: Number and function for non-mathematician George Levy
- Fermi's Paradox Norman Samish
- Re: Fermi's Paradox Brent Meeker
- Re: Fermi's Paradox Norman Samish
- Re: Fermi's Paradox Bruno Marchal
- Re: Fermi's Paradox Brent Meeker
- Re: Fermi's Paradox Bruno Marchal
- RE: Fermi's Paradox Danny Mayes

- Re: Fermi's Paradox John M

- Re: Number and function for non-mathematician Russell Standish
- Re: Number and function for non-mathematician Bruno Marchal