David Nyman wrote:
> Brent Meeker wrote:
>>So you want an explanation in terms of the "underlying physics" - the physics
>>of the really > real reality. And how will you know when you've found it?
> It seems to me that comp precisely asserts (and can putatively prove)
> such a 'really real reality' from which observable physics emerges. In
> fact, it demonstrates the necessary relativity between (possibly
> nested) 'sandwiches' of Qualitative Reality and Observable Reality. In
> the comp account, this is responsible for the following jaw-dropping
> 1) QR (1-person pov) is recursively prior to OR (3-person relata), to
> which it stands in the logical relation of a medium to the symbols
> embodied in it. Consequently, of course, OR cannot *cause* QR, although
> it must correlate with it (hence your observations about neural
> correlates etc.).
But it's still a model, one based on arithmetic rather than matter, and the
only way to judge whether it is a good model to see how it corresponds with
"mere appearance"; just like we test QM, general relativity, and every other
theory. It *might* be the really real model - but so might any other model
that fits all the data.
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