[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Rex Allen
Sent: Monday, 27 June 2011 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:29 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales
There are empirical predictions made by T' that cannot be made by T and
these are entirely confined to the implementation of an observer.
What's an example of this?
1) Why are peripheral neuron soma generally more symmetric than
2) Why is there a layered/columnar structure to brain material?
3) Why are pyramidal cells highly associated with delivery of
4) Why are EM fields active, hyperexpressed and highly localized to
central nervous system function?
Things of that nature. With the appropriate T', you start to get
predictions like this that match up with what we know in set T like
"there are pyramidal cells in the cortex in layer 2". Set T' says why.
You can generalize this. For example, Set T has F = MA. i.e. An observer
will only see things that are consistent with F=MA. In contrast, set T'
expressions will express why F=MA (and not something else). Two sides of
the one coin. One could argue that T' is unjustifiable if it weren't
for the fact that it does, for an observer, what it does for F=MA.....
except that it predicts the outward appearance of the observer, to
itself the observer - something set T has to presuppose.
Convoluted but it works. T' = structure/why, T = appearance/what. They
join/self validate in the explanation of an observer because T doesn't
actually explain (in the sense of causal necessity) anything at all, not
just the observer.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at