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 > implications: > > 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. Brent Meeker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
