I think we have no choice in the matter (once we assume the
"unbelievable comp hyp."). The physical is not just a mathematical
structure among others. The physical emerged from a sort of sum
pertaining on the whole of the mathematical possible histories. If this
does not give the empirical physics, then comp will be refuted. But
preliminary results give already a sort of quantum topology. The one I
have more or less extracted from the comp hyp, at the modest
propositional level, has not yet been prove to be be equivalent to
universal quantum topology, but they are clues indicating that comp
could be the promising path. It is quasi obvious that comp entails many
consistent histories, and the math gives reasons why such histories
interferes statistically in a "quantum way", i.e. with a
perpendicularity relation on the possible incompatible states/stories.
Ah yes the "truly" parallel realities are perpendicular, but this is
already the case with quantum mechanics and its "scalar product".
What is hard, and on which I am stuck since years is to find the
(arithmetical) needed tensor product, or how does a first person plural
reality occur. Mathematically it is enough to assume at some place a
linearity condition. But this is cheating; we have to justify that
linearity from comp only, as comp justifies we have to do. Sorry if I
am a bit short.

In the sense of David Wolerpt's (of NASA) omniscient devices and 
oracles, I think a theorem is this:

Inconsistency in some sense (like answering a question as neither yes 
nor no, but something like MU in Eastern thought), is a -necessary- 
condition for omniscience.

Or, phrased differently, omniscience implies inconsistency.

In a -binary- logical universe, that is.

What is "This"?

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