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 <[email protected]> To: everything-list <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Jul 4, 2013 5:23 pm Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism On 7/4/2013 1:15 PM, [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> To: everything-list <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Jul 4, 2013 3:18 pm Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism On 7/4/2013 5:31 AM, [email protected] 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
