Understood, yet the notion that highly developed chemicals, a woodchuck, 
ourselves, somehow are required to finalize the probability cloud of swirling 
particles. How convinced am I of this as being true? If you are saying its 
unnecessary, by evidence that we have today, I'd agree. On the idea of the 
unknown, and what is the "adjacent possibility" I would say it's worth 
exploring. Perhaps, high value chem processing is what is needed to ice the 
cake, and to calculate, or chrystalize the world. Or, maybe not. 

On decoherence, we then to creep into the twilight zone of Everett's MWI, as I 
am not satisfied by the Bohr standard model of QM. And, I may be wrong on this 
as well.

Mitch


But why should the fact that some chemicals replicate instantiate reality?  
"Life" is really replication with evolution - if you don't include evolution 
then you could regard as crystals as replicating.






-----Original Message-----
From: meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Jul 4, 2013 5:23 pm
Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism



On 7/4/2013 1:15 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

Good point. But replication would be a means for establishing reality. Perhaps, 
life reproducing sustains reality?  


But why should the fact that some chemicals replicate instantiate reality?  
"Life" is really replication with evolution - if you don't include evolution 
then you could regard as crystals as replicating.


For me it's quite bizzare in the sense that it's non-intuitive. On the other 
hand it applies the observer as what or who establishes reality. 


The decoherence account of (almost) deriving the classical world (aka 
"reality") from QM doesn't depend on observers except in the sense of devices 
with many degrees of freedom with states robust against entanglement with the 
environment.

Brent





-----Original Message-----
From: meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Jul 4, 2013 3:18 pm
Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism



On 7/4/2013 5:31 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:


Interesting Dr. Marchal,
 
Do you hold that Dr. Robert Lanza and Bob Berman, may be on to something then? 
Lanza is a cell biologist, and Berman is an astronomer. They, together, came up 
with the theory of biocentrism, as the trigger to make probability real. That 
life, even at its simplest structures (bacteria) act as an observer to sense 
the universe, out of a cloud of probabilities swirling around us. That, life 
consciously, and unconsciously selects the physical cosmos. They have called it 
the Biocentrsm Theory. Maybe life is what causes the math to process as axioms, 
as programs (if you are a Stephen Wolfram fan?) to emerge from the great 
probability 'cloud.' Or, am I misunderstanding what you have intended? In both 
cases, yours, and theirs, there is no specific, physical universe, because it 
chrystalizes out of observation. 

Except "life" is well modelled as chemistry and physics; so I don't see any 
gain in introducing replication as a foundational concept.

Brent




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to