Needless to say I feel honored that you've taken
the time to answer my naive questions. But since you invite such
questions, I do have a problem with the phrase highlighted below.
Exactly what feature of the "fundamental status of physics" is
questioned by comp? Is it just the insistence on a substrate of matter?
If *all *the laws of physics (in the real TOE) can be generated
(duplicated) by pure mathematics, isn't the distinction a trivial
semantic one solved by one sweep of Occam's razor? Do you view the idea
of "matter" as somehow inhibiting the pace of scientific discovery or as
the basis of a dangerous, quasi-mystical, pseudo-religious cult? Just
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 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 consciousness).
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