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.


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

Reply via email to