Bruno: 'To be honest I always fear a bit those who want to help me or others, but thanks anyway for the good intentions (which pave the way to hell ... :) '

MP: yes, I can relate to that. Be reassured then that as I understand it [AIUI], helping you and others is very much in my own interest. I must feel that my life has meaning. Without this, getting up in the morning would become a terrible effort never mind going to work in the oxymoronic, Sisyphus-world of bureaucracy. Amongst other things this entails belief that the things I do contribute to the well being and survival prospects of those I love and also to the benefit of those upon whom my children and their children will depend in the future. As I like to say: the human universe is always potentially infinite, so long as it exists and we believe it to be so. However I have not met anyone who can reassure me that the human species has anything much more than a 50% chance of surviving beyond the next 200 years.

I can see how all the pieces necessary to create sustainable and enduring social and cultural networks and systems already exist; the technology has already been invented, the theory has all been written down. What is not clear to me however is how to ensure that everybody with the need [effectively everybody on the planet] can access the information they need to make fully informed decisions about the crucial issues which affect us. I am pretty much convinced that the answer/s involves person to person dialogue rather than propaganda and oratory, and the empowerment of individuals to undertake human sized projects rather than the regimenting of industrial clone armies in massive organisations. AIUI the practice of sceptical inquiry is fundamental to getting things right. In this vein, we all need to help each other to see on the one hand the formidable danger which affects absolutely ALL of us, and on the other hand to see the utterly amazing potential for creatively solving all the practical problems that confront us. Such is the nature of the modern world as it is transformed again and again by the fruits of the application of scientific method.

Bruno: 'Then I can explain you with all details why the proposition "we will all 1-die" is provably "put in doubt" once we assume either just comp or even just quantum mechanics. With QM this is not wishful thinking but "terrorful" thinking: a priori the QM immortality is not fun: each time we die clinically (in a relative third person way), from our personal point of view we survive in the closer normal comp. history. A case can been made that this entails a sort of eternal agony. Of course this can be nuanced too. With comp some weird gap seems to exist ... '

MP: I do not understand this. I am surprised to notice, however, a faint resemblance to something I read once concerning the teachings of George Gurdjieff, an ethnic Armenian who became a teacher of 'esoteric religion' and some very deep insights into how humans function, in the early 20 Century. He died in 1952 in France. Gurdjieff was asked what was the truth about reincarnation, and the reply was along the lines of: talk of souls transmigrating from body to body over millennia was misleading, it is more like that if a person could not see what they were really doing, and what they are, then they [we] are condemned to live and relive that same life - until we realise what is happening [I suppose, or some such ... ]. Well once upon a time I was very enthusiastic about George Gurdjieff's teachings but now I think just that his psychological insights and practical methods were good but too much of his metaphysics, for want of a better word, is pre-scientific in origin.

Bruno: 'Have you an opinion on QM interpretation?'

MP: Well, from my particular style of ignorance, I take it that QM is a descriptive system that allows predictions and explanations to be made about how things do or will occur at the smallest scales of measurement that scientists can currently observe. I take with a grain of salt all statements that the noumenal world, or even parts of it, cannot exist without an observer. That world - 'The Great It' - I like to call it, exists whether we know about it or not. We participate and make things happen, but usually without being very aware of it. Our awareness is what it is like to be the updating of the brain's model of self in the world, and this model is a cryptic, or encrypted, analogue system. It is complex and subtle but classical as opposed to Quantum in nature, in that the dynamic logical entities which mental objects and so forth are aggregate effects of literally millions of neuron interactions. I take it that harmonic resonance and all manner of standing wave effects are essential to the spatia-temporal structure of perceptions and other mental objects. So, AIUI, clearly the world described by QM is very weird from our classical and naive experience view point, but it is so whether we know about it or not. The world we are normally aware of, or our experience of it if you like, is our brain's analogue description of the emergent properties of space-time, energy and matter at our bodies' order of magnitude.

Bruno: 'Worst, I do believe this assumption is contrary to both logic+arithmetic (and comp) and with the empirical data'

MP: What data?

MP: Existence entails being somewhere and IMO, except possibly for the smallest conceivable distances of Planck length, whatever it is that IS somewhere ENDURES while other things change around it. I have written before about my Process Physics inspired conception of connections [called Janus] being ultimately all that is and that particles of matter and energy are knot-like, self-entangled concentrations of the every collapsing plenitude of simplifying connections. It just seems to me to be logically necessary that existence and location are prerequisites for anything else. Perhaps that should be existence, location and separation. But anyway, words fail and something like the Chinese Yin and Yang conception actually makes a lot of sense [thinks: the interpenetration and eternal separation of two branes might be just that!]

Numbers are written and imagined as existing in their own right

Mark Peaty  CDES

Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Mark,

(To the other: I will read and comment the remaining posts after next wednesday; I am very busy).

Le 08-janv.-07, à 18:31, Mark Peaty a écrit :

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to