On Jan 26, 9:22 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Also, I still don't understand how you will avoid the white rabbits. > > By extracting the physical laws from some 1-person machine measure. > This one can be extracted from some interview of an honest > self-observing machine. Well, to be sure, I'm saying this since 1973 > but it is only in 1991 that I have find a "formal" clue of the reason > why the rabbits could disappear: the logic of certainty, corresponding > to the godelian sort of undeterminateness, allows a formal quantization > of the true Sigma_1 propositions (= those corresponding to the > accessible state of the UD). This is by far NOT enough for already > pretending that comp will avoid the white rabbits, but, imo, it is > enough to make very plausible they can disappear through purely number > theoretical reason, so that we don't have to rely on some material > assumption, which puts the mind body problem (my basic motivation) > under the aristotelian rug. > > But sure, the disappearance of white rabbits with comp is still an open > problem. Brent seems to believe it is yet open in QM too, which is > coherent with the fact that most MWI relies implicitly or not on some > comp assumption. I sum up this sometimes by saying that decoherence + > MWI avoids 3-person rabbits, but not the 1-person one. Actually I have > argue that ASSA does the same. Some bayesian stuff seems to be able to > eliminate the 3-rabbits (or the first plural person one), but hardly > the first person one (I refer to my oldest post to this list, but I can > repeat, especially when encouraged, the subject matter is tricky). > > Bruno
Why do we need to eliminate first-person white rabbits? For purposes of science, is not elimination of third-person (or first-person plural) white rabbits sufficient? So what if we hallucinate, or dream about a talking white rabbit? We can come back to "scientific reality" through the third-person or first-person plural, i.e. methods of "objectivity" (third-person/first-person plural view by our own definition). By the way, I'm not implying that scientific reality is sufficient for meaning of life. ;) My above questions are perhaps a bit rhetorical in this sense. I think the answer is that we long to find meaning solely through science so that we can control everything, and so we *try* to erect science as the god over all meaning. Tom --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
