On 1/10/2014 1:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Stephen Paul King wrote:
That is the key question that remains, IMHO, unanswered.
It is answered, completely.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:45 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com
On 10 January 2014 10:33, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
I think the question is whether comp determines that the world is
Lorentz invariant. If it is, then c is just a unit conversion factor
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
Only from what we have just experienced before. Comp does not predict the existence of
the moon, but should predict the physical laws, that is, what is invariant for all
So is this an alternative to the WAP - we experience a universe compatible
existence because such a universe has to drop out of the interations of
beings in Platonia?
As I said, comp uses only a conditional probability, not a bayesian relation, which can
still be used for geography and history. But the physical laws are defined by the
general measure on the computation, which must exist with comp, and is given by the
material points of view (Bp & Dt, mainly).
But can you prove within comp that there must be physical laws, can you prove that
solipism is false, that it's not ALL geography and we have nothing to thank for our
existence but WAP?
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.