On 23 September 2013 13:16, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 12:29:30PM -0400, John Clark wrote: > > > > Bruno, if you have something new to say about this "proof" of yours then > > say it, but don't pretend that 2 years of correspondence and hundreds of > > posts in which I list things that I didn't understand about the first 3 > > steps didn't exist. If you can repair the blunders made in the first 3 > > steps then I'll read step 4, until then doing so would be ridiculous. > > > > John K Clark > > > > John, for the sake of the rest of us, it would be useful for you to > summarise just what the problems were that you found with the first > three steps. > > I have been on everything list since almost the beginning, and on FoR > (on and off) most of the time of its existence, too. I don't ever > remember a post from you along those lines, although I do recall > several references to it by Bruno, so no doubt it exists, and I just > missed it. I'm sceptical of the "hundreds of posts" claim, though. > > For me, my stopping point is step 8. I do mean to summarise the > intense discussion we had earlier this year on this topic, but that > will require an uninterrupted period of a day or two, just to pull it all > into a comprehensible document. > > I'm just now reading a reading a very long paper (more of a short > book, actually) by Scott Aaronson, on the subject of free will, which > is one of those rare works in that topic that is not > gibberish. Suffice it to say, that if he is ultimately convincing, he > would get me to stop at step 0 (ie COMP is false), but more on that > later when I finish it. > > I am still reading this, but I am a little disappointed that as far as I can see he hasn't mentioned Huw Price and John Bell's alternative formulation of Bell's Inequality, namely that it can be explained using microscopic time-symmetry. (This is despite mentioning Huw Price in the acknowledgements.) Maybe I will come across a mention somewhere as I continue, but I've been reading the section on Bell's Inequality and it doesn't seem that this potentially highly fruitful explanation - all the more so in that it doesn't require any new physics or even any new interpretations of existing physics - doesn't merit a mention, which is a shame because without taking account of that potential explanation, any subsequent reasoning that relies on Bell's Inequality is potentially flawed. -- 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.
