Le 10-juil.-07, à 14:09, David Nyman a écrit :

> On Jul 6, 2:56 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It
>> is a unexpected (by me) discovery that quanta belongs to that sharable
>> first person view (making the comp-QM a bit more psychological than
>> some Many-Worlder would perhaps appreciate.
> Doesn't this strike you as perhaps consistent with what I've been
> saying about self-relation, or reflexive existence?

I try to avoid the words like "reflexive" or "reflection" in informal 
talk, because it is a tricky technical terms
I tend to agree with what Brent said. I feel I understand what you say 
most of the time, except when you try to be (over)precise by 
introducing too much vocabulary in this informal context. I'm afraid 
that sometimes you are near the 1004 fallacy.
When I say that sometimes I understand you, it means that I can 
represent what you are saying in the lobian discourse. But of course 
your intuition grew perhaps from non comp or non lobian origin. It is 
difficult, by many aspect the lobian first person is anti-comp (and 
certainly not lobian).
(I see now what could be the comp lobian "observer moments", and will 
say more in a special purpose post.
Coming back from Siena, I know now that all my work on Church thesis is 
more original than I thought (meaning: I have to publish more before 
even logician grasp the whole thing ...).

> IOW, quanta - as
> they appear to *us* (how else?) -

Is "us" = to the lobian machine?

> exist reflexively.

That does not make sense for me, unless you just mean that the 
appearance of quanta appears when we observe ourselves close enough, in 
a third person way or (most probably) in a first person plural way.

> Comp, like any
> 'TOE',  is a "gods' eye view",

Hmmm.... The physicalist TOE are like that. But I think it is a defect.
Anyway, a comp TOE *has to* relate *all* points of view with "God"'s 

> and I've been trying to convince Torgny
> that we shouldn't fool ourselves into mistaking such conceptions for
> modes of existing.

But each point of view (hypostasis) defines its own "mode of 
existence". Now Plotinus restricts the notion of existence for the 
ideas (here: the effective objects which provably exist in Platonia). 
That is why both God and Matter does not really exist in Plotinus 
theory. Of course God and Matter do exist, even for Plotinus, but it is 
a different mode of existence.

> We may nonetheless ask - with great care - "what
> might the consequences be if our situation were - in some (tricky)
> sense - to look like this from a gods' eye view?"  But this is a
> (tricky, tricky) mode of enquiry, not a mode of existing.

A rich lobian machine can make the complete scientific study of the 
theology of a less rich machine, and then she can lift it cautiously 
and interrogatively on herself.

> 'The One' is also a mode of enquiry (no less tricky, of course): it
> seems to suggest that the mode of existing of both the qualia and the
> quanta may be ineliminably reflexive: the splintering of a singular
> process of self-reflexion.

What I can say is that qualia and quanta are a product of lobian 
self-reference, like all hypostases, with the notable exception of the 
One (Alias Truth).

> Self: because there is no other;


> reflexion: because there is no other relation.




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 

Reply via email to