Bruno, > From this we can extract a logic of the observable proposition and > compare with the empirical quantum logic, making comp testable, and > already tested on its most weird consequences, retrospectively.
you could refute COMP (MEC) if it would contradict empirical QM, but QM (and especially many worlds) is also compatible with MAT (and NOT COMP). These would be Tegmark's Level I and II universes - infinite physical (or mathematical physicalist as defined by Kory) universes with matter permuting in all possible ways. If you then let consciousness supervene on matter (but not in a COMP way (see MGA) - maybe because of local infinities or whatever) and with UNIFICATION you would also get a many worlds scenario (also in the sense that for a 1st person one would have to look at the MAT-histories running through every OM) In your posts you do seem to have a preference for COMP (although you say you don't have a position ;-) but I think you definitely lean more to COMP than to MAT - are there reasons for this or is it only a personal predilection? Cheers, Günther p.s.: I am looking forward to your further MGA posts (how far will they go, you have hinted up to MGA 5?) and the ensuing discussion, I have very much enjoyed reading all this stuff. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
