Bruno Marchal wrote: > Le 08-août-06, à 08:58, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > > >> > >> Not at all. I mean it in the operational physical sense. Like > >> observing > >> your hand with a microscope, or looking closely to the "path" of an > >> electron. > > > > Could you say more about this? If you examine an object more and more > > closely you see more and more detail, and I understand that you have > > other > > arguments suggesting that this is all due to the ensemble of > > computations > > underpinning the physical reality, but are you suggesting that the > > fact that > > you can observe these levels is *by itself* evidence for these levels > > and > > sublevels of computation? > > Comp predicts that if you look closely enough you will see reality > blurring. The evidence from empirical science (quantum physics) is that > indeed reality blurs, but of course "informal comp" does not give the > details of the blurring process.
One thing we *do* know for sure is that Harry Potter universes -- *literal* HP universes -- are computable, since the special effects in the Harry Potter movies were computer generated! Therefore the problem with everythingism is that it predicts *too much* weirdness. (And, as I am forever pointing out, materialism-contingency-empiricism [*] doesn't exclude quantum fuzziness or many worlds, providing there are contingent facts about how much fuzziness and how many worlds). [*] my term for the non-everythingist philosophy. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
