Dear Bruno,
                        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 
curious. Best,
                    marty a.

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

Reply via email to