On 11/7/2012 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Nov 2012, at 00:12, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/6/2012 11:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Even Berkeley had to admit that no forest, no whatever..
was foolishness and so said that in that case, God
observed it. Get real.
Then you are explicitly admitting that God's only purpose is to be
an Absolute observer in whose eye all truth is definite. The problem
is that such ideas cannot explain how that definiteness is consistent
with the experimental results that confirm the violation of Bell's
theorem and other theorems (Gleason, Kochen-Specker).
Only if you assume that the physical is the fundamental reality.
How so? DO you not see how my definitions of "reality" are such
that there is not a "fundamental reality"? If you would just think about
it a bit: /A reality is that which a collection (of 3 or more) observers
can agree upon as empty of contradictions./ Note that as the number of
observers goes to infinity, the possibility of a single consistent
Reality goes to zero.
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