Le 11-mars-07, à 09:40, Tom Caylor wrote in part:

> Getting back to the plenitude, it seems that
> the many-worlds interpretation takes bottom-up to the extreme and
> says, OK we can't figure out how the good stuff happens, so let's just
> say that everything happens. So this is supposed to take the worship
> and awe out of it all:  It's not a big deal that we are here.  We just
> are, so let's just get on with it and mechanically follow our local
> wants.

Some are using the many-worlds idea like that, but with reasonable 
hypotheses like comp and /or the QM hypo, we already know that what 
matter are the relations between the worlds/OM. With comp the multi-OM 
is structured canonically by each choice of point of views. Even if 
this is not the correct theory, it is enough to make your inference not 
valid. QM can be used instead.
In particular ultimate meaning is not excluded at all, although (with 
comp) what is excluded is that the ultimate meaning can be written on a 
finite piece of paper.



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