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 firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at