On 3/12/2012 10:00 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/11/2012 11:41 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
An Evil Wizard could pop into my vicinity and banish me to the
Nether plane! A "magical act", if real and just part of a story, is
an event that violates some conservation law. I don't see what else
would constitute magic... My point is that Harry Potterisms would
introduce cul-de-sacs that would totally screw up the statistics and
measures, so they have to be banished.
Because otherwise things would be screwed up?
Chain-wise consistency and concurrency rules would prevent these
pathologies, but to get them we have to consider multiple and
disjoint observers and not just "shared" 1p as such implicitly assume
an absolute frame of reference. Basically we need both conservation
laws and general covariance. Do we obtain that naturally from COMP?
That's an open question.
You seem to be begging the question: We need regularity, otherwise
things wouldn't be regular.
No, you are dodging the real question: How is the measure defined?
If it is imposed by fiat, say so and defend the claim. Why is it so hard
to get you to consider multiple observers and consider the question as
to how exactly do they interact? Al of the discussion that I have seen
so far considers a single observer and abstractions about other people.
The most I am getting is the word "plurality". Is this difficult? Really?
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