On 27 Jul 2009, at 03:04, m.a. wrote:
> I am indeed ready to pursue further and since we'll be
> covering both topics anyhow, I would prefer that you choose which
> would be the most natural next step for us.
Hmm... The problem is that it is natural or not according to different
people on the list. I have to think a little bit. I pursue asap.
I can be slow down a little bit by my work. But I will try to
already pursue today, may be with a little post.
> Also, I assume you have seen the following and I
> wondered if it tends to confirm UDA.
Well, comp does not yet confirm just quantum mechanics in full, so it
is too much early to decide, with comp, what would be the better
marriage between GR and QM.
... yet, the shadows of braids and links(*) appear somehow in the two
matter hypostases, and this in a context where space (not juts time)
has to be a self-referential context, in that weak sense, such work
seems to go in the right direction. Of course the approach are
different, and loop gravity suffers the usual weakness of the whole
aristotelian theology, where the observer's experiences are abstracted
away. All this relies to AUDA.
To be sure, some aspect of string theory (the rival of loop gravity)
are very nice with respect to the idea that physics comes from number.
Thanks for the link.
(*) May be you could search "Temperley" on the archive. I have already
said a few words on this in the list.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at