On 11/19/2012 9:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Nov 2012, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote:
I agree with this view, especially the part about the
compatibility of bases leading to a 'sharing of realities' that then
gives rise to an illusion of a single classical reality; I just
phrase the concepts differently. My question to you is how 'simple'
can an observer be, as a system? It seems to me that even particles
could be considered as observers. I buy Chalmers' argument for
I doubt that very much, ...
Me too, as "pan" assumed some physical reality and thus contradict
comp, which is assumed also.
Why are you not considering the 'pan' to cover a plurality of 1p
that are observing or otherwise interacting and communicating with each
other as a 'physical reality"? I hope that we can agree that there is at
least an illusion of a physical world that 'we' - you, me, Russell, ....
can consider... Is it necessarily inconsistent with comp?
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