Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit :
> Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL.... I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that. Your longer "metaphysics" post begs many of the questions addressed in this list. Personally: I have no theory, just an argument showing that if we take the "yes doctor" seriously enough then there is no primitive physical objects AT ALL(**), and then I show how to recover constructively the stable appearances of physical objects, and this in a precise empirically verifiable way(*). (And to be sure, I have always expected to get a refutation, but instead the theory has been confirmed until now. Of course QM, loop gravity and string theories are still in advance for the physical stuff but (a)comp is in advance for the explanation of the quanta-qualia relations, (and more generally the relation between all point of views (n-persons, hypostases) I would say). Bruno (*) This makes me an empirist, but I do not subscribe to "math is physics" form of empiry. It belongs more on the type "physics" is mathematics as seen from some internal observer-universal machine. (**) More precisely: such a notion of primitive physical objects can no more be invoked for justifying the appearances of physical laws. BTW (a minor detail) rational numbers are also dense, but are constructive objects. Cf your long post. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
