Le 07-août-06, à 18:24, 1Z a écrit :
> Because you don't believe in empriricism, but that is all rather
Who said I am not an empiricist?
OK. I am saying that "fundamental truth (including the origin of the
"universe")" is in our head (like mystics). But then I make this
precise with comp: grosso modo, I am saying that "fundamental truth is
in the head of any self-referentially correct machine (also called
I explain (through the UD Argument) why physics is there too.
I explain (through the interview of the lobian machine) how to extract
physics from the "head of a machine".
But I conclude from this only that comp is testable: extract physics
from the head of the machine and then compare with empirical physics.
If nature contradicts the comp theory, I would abandon the comp theory,
I would not conclude that nature is faulty, just that nature gives
evidence that comp is wrong.
Of course, if comp is correct (and if my reasoning is not faulty) then
I show that mysticism (and especially rational mysticism (like one
millennium of greek theology)) is correct, and that truth indeed is in
our head, but I am open that comp will appear to be wrong in front of
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at