>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:19:03 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>> Hi Craig,
> Comp is not false, IMHO, it is just looked as through a very limited
> window. It's notion of truth is what occurs in the limit of an infinite
> number of mutually agreeing observers. 1+1=2 has no counter example in a
> world that is Boolean Representable, thus it is universally true. This does
> not imply that all mathematical truths are so simple to prove via a method
> of plurality of agreement. Motl wrote something on this today:
Unfortunately that page seems to be gone?
I'm not saying that arithmetic isn't objectively true though, I'm saying
that arithmetic comes from sense and not the other way around. The fact
that geometry is arithmetically redundant I think supports that if not
proves it. If comp were true, the universe would not and could not have any
> "When truths don't commute. Inconsistent histories.
> When the uncertainty principle is being presented, people usually – if not
> always – talk about the position and the momentum or analogous dimensionful
> quantities. That leads most people to either ignore the principle
> completely or think that it describes just some technicality about the
> accuracy of apparatuses.
> However, most people don't change their idea what the information is and
> how it behaves. They believe that there exists some sharp objective
> information, after all. Nevertheless, these ideas are incompatible with the
> uncertainty principle. Let me explain why the uncertainty principle applies
> to the truth, too."
> Please read the read at his website
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
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