On 18 Nov 2008, at 15:30, m.a. wrote:

> So you're saying that matter is as much a delusion as the  
> luminiferous aether

Yes. If you mean matter by "fundamental matter".

  It does not mean the Higgs boson is an illusion (in case the LHC  
shows it). It means that the idea that there are fundamental stuffy  
material things constituting the observable reality is an illusion.  
The content of physics is not necessarily wrong, it is the fundamental  
status of physics (in the real TOE) which is questioned by the comp  
hypothesis.  (By *real* TOE, I mean a TOE which does not eliminate  

> and could be a logical extension of Kant's subjective definitions of  
> space and time?

I think so indeed, but my translations of Kant contradict each other.  
So I am not 100% sure.
Note also tat in the comp frame: "subjective" will admit good  
mathematical approximations, from personal memory to godel-lob  
provability logics. I mean we can have objective talk on the subjective.

> And the splitting of the MWI is just permutations of equations?

Frankly you are a big quick here. The point is to make this precise  
enough so we can test comp experimentally.

> Gosh.

I agree. But feel free to put your finger on what could be wrong in  
the argument, and keep in mind the premisses can be eventually shown  
to be false. It is not philosophy, it is applied logic (and arithmetic/ 
computer science + a minimal amount of cognitive science). I am not  
defending a position, just showing it follows from "a position" (the  
digital mechanist  or comp position).

Bruno M.


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