Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

On 19/01/2009, at 9:58 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 18-janv.-09, à 11:32, Kim Jones a écrit : On 18/01/2009, at 4:38 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: I have no doubt that digital mechanism and materialism are incompatible, though. Is that because, under materialism, consciousness depends on

Re: Newbie Questions

Hi, Naive question: do physicists reconcile a really flat universe and the big bang theory? I don't see how. you mean this problem? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Flatness.2Foldness_problem Inflationary theories give a solution, but it is a bit ad hoc. I am not a big fan of Big Bang

Materialism was:Re: KIM 2.3

Brent, I wonder, what do you mean with materialism (I ask this having been a materialist myself)? Physics only describes relations. (see for instance here http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/) I gather you accept MWI, so quite a lot of relations hold. The question is, why

Re: QM Turing Universality

Hi Bruno, I have finished the reading of the paper I mentioned (Deutsch's Universal Quantum Turing Machine revisited) and I see they have very similar problems, probably better described. I finished a rather careful reading of that paper (QTM revisited) too,

Re: Materialism was:Re: KIM 2.3

Günther Greindl wrote: Brent, I wonder, what do you mean with materialism (I ask this having been a materialist myself)? I didn't use the term - it is one being attributed to me simply because I question the adequacy of logic and mathematics to instantiate physics. Physics only