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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to