On 10/8/2011 5:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Oct 2011, at 19:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/7/2011 6:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Indeed with comp, or with other everything type of theories, the problem is that such
fantasy worlds might be too much probable, contradicting the observations.
I don't see how probability theory is going to help even if you can prove some
canonical measure applies. Suppose our world turns out to be extremely improbable?
It still would not invalidate the theory.
Probabilities like that use some absolute self-sampling assumption, which does not make
much sense. Comp, like QM, only provide conditional or relative probabilities. Comp can
be refuted by predicting anything different for a repeatable experience.
If comp predict that an electron weight one ton, then it will be refuted. Comp+the
classical theory of knowledge, predicts the whole physics, so it is hard to ever imagine
a more easy to refute theory.
Depends on what you mean by "the whole of physics". What has been thought to be the
"whole of physics" has been refuted. Newtonian physics was refuted by special and general
relativity. General relativity is inconsistent with quantum mechanics. So which "whole
of physics" does Comp predict? Is it inconsistent with the "physics" of computer games?
What does Comp predict about dark matter? Will it be a new particle? A modified gravity?
We have already the logic of measure one.
I don't understand what measure there is on logics.
If physics was newtonian or boolean, comp would be refuted already.
How would it be inconsistent with a Newtonian world?
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