On 9/25/2011 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Yes, it would generate every possible information state, and would therefore create me and all my possible futures, but these 'pictures' would have no coherence, would immediately dissolve back into the static they emerged from.## Advertising

The point is that IF we are machine, then we have no choice other than extracting thephysical laws from the UD.

`Actually I think we do. If what you write above is correct then you could infer a`

`contradiction from assuming a primitive physics - but it seems you discard it as an`

`application of Occam's razor, not as a contradictory concept. Do you think you can prove`

`a contradiction from assuming ur-matter? It seems to me that Peter Jones has given a`

`convincing defense of that as a possible theory of the world.`

This is done in the mathematical part, where, contrary to all expectations (at least bysome of my colleagues at the time) we get already quantum logics.The UD, as a generator of static, cannot explain coherence in my experience.You need a theory of knowledge. I use the most classical theory of knowledge (the one byTheaetetus), and it is enough to cut any easy conclusion against mechanism.

`This is unclear to me. You use Bp & p to denote "knowing p" where p is some proposition.`

`But it seems that "B" is equivocally "Believes" and "Proves" (Beweisbar). I don't see`

`that these two are identical.`

Brent -- 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.