Le dimanche 23 novembre 2008 à 22:09 +0100, Günther Greindl a écrit :
> > 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.
That was my point about finite "block" of universe... even if the
universe is infinite every finite block of it contains finite numbers of
matter hence a finite numbers (however big it is) of possible
permutations of the matter within it (even if you take the maximal
permutations of fully filled "block" of matters). That's what I call the
divx arguments :) What you see (or what any human could see) however big
is the resolution of the picture is still finite data. Example, imagine
that our eyes resolution is 10⁵x10⁵ and we are able to "see" 10³
pictures per second... then a human lifetime of seeing is encodable in a
string of 10⁵x10⁵x3x10³x60x60x24x365x~100 bits (3 for 3 bytes per pixel
for 16.5 millions color not even discernable by us, 100 for a 100 years
of lifetime) not taking "compression" in account.. it's (very⁵) big but
finite (and I did take a very⁵ high resolution) and all humans seeing
will be encodable with all permutations available on a string of this
length. Which is even bigger but still finite.
> 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)
If infinities are at play... what is a MAT-history ? it can't even be
> 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?
> 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.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
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