Saibal,

You (still?) miss the first person indeterminacy. It leads to mathematicalism, even arithmeticalism, but it put self-referential constraints on how the physical realities, appaers actually how the coupling consciousness/realities (a sort of Galois connection) arise from arithmetic.


That's a bit astonsihing for an participant on this list. You proposal is wrong at the start, I think. You are not aware of the mind-body problem once you have comp, as you postulate yourself.

Your way of hunting the white rabbist still hides the first person rabbits. Too easy! You can't postulate the quantum laws.

Bruno



On 29 Jan 2011, at 16:51, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:

On this list we've talked about "observer moments" (OM) quite a lot, but I always found the notion that some pattern represents a conscious state to be problematic.

I have written up a draft of a paper, see here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.4472

One can use the reasoning in the end of the paper to give a derivation of the Born rule by applying a similar formal reasoning as Zurek in this paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.5082

I plan to do that later.

Saibal

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to