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.
Hi Roger,

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.

Dear Bruno,

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

Reply via email to