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, [email protected] 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 [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
.
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 [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.
