On 10 January 2014 21:54, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 09 Jan 2014, at 22:45, LizR wrote: > > On 10 January 2014 10:33, meekerdb <[email protected]> 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 >> units. >> > 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 appeared.
> 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 [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.
