On 10 January 2014 21:54, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 09 Jan 2014, at 22:45, LizR wrote:
> On 10 January 2014 10:33, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> I think the question is whether comp determines that the world is
>> (locally) Lorentz invariant. If it is, then c is just a unit conversion
>> factor between the + and - signature terms. It's value is arbitrary, like
>> "how many feet in a mile", which is why it is now an exact number in SI
> Oh yes, I seem to remember that physicists like to set c (and h?) to 1.
> So does comp predict that any TOE will have a unique solution - namely the
> one we experience? So is this an alternative to the WAP - we experience a
> universe compatible with our existence because such a universe has to drop
> out of the interations of conscious beings in Platonia?
> It is not the same. WAP use a form of ASSA, where comp uses only RSSA.
> (Absolute versus Relative self sampling assumptions).
> Ah, I don't quite understand that but I feel like a dim light migvht have
> We might revise step seven, as this should be understood from it. Any TOE
> (that is any first order logical specification of any universal system
> taken in the ontology) must give rise to the same physics, at least for
> each pints of view. It gives the same theology, more generally, and physics
> is defined through it.
Remind me, which is step 7?
> We can come back on this.
Yes please. This is very interesting!
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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.