On 31 Aug 2005, at 16:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:[BM] Of course, Everett still postulates EQM, and interpret it in a physicalist way. I have clear that I don't follow him in the sense that, once comp is assumed, my theorem shows that SWE is either redundant or false. Now I am a realist. reality
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:55:07 +0200
Subject: Re: Kaboom
On 30 Aug 2005, at 18:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (GK, G
On 30 Aug 2005, at 18:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (GK, Godfrey) wrote:
[BM]
As Russell point out to Godfrey, it is important to distinguish
sort of constructive physicalism a-la-Schmidhuber, where the
physical universe is a computational object and comp where there is
no physical universe at
I think this is a classic example of the problem of 'isms. In your
dichotomy below, I believe the wave function does indeed encode the
state of our knowledge - I say as much in my book. Yet I would say my
ensemble-based approach is Platonic, not Positivist.
Hmm, which am I, Platonist or Positivist
frey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:21:03 +0200
Subject: Re: Kaboom
On 30 Aug 2005, at 05:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[BM]
As Russell point out t
On 30 Aug 2005, at 05:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:The misinterpretations compounded and intermingled so much I decided to cut to the meat of it.. I suspect that this dialogue will end in the usual way. Being ignoredThe well worn path of COMP and all the things it says, the idea that a multivers
Hi Bruno,
The misinterpretations compounded and intermingled so much I decided to cut to
the meat of it.. I suspect that this dialogue will end in the usual way. Being
ignoredThe well worn path of COMP and all the things it says, the idea that
a multiverse explains something: these are en
On 29 Aug 2005, at 03:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Before I disappear back into the eeeuw enteric neuroscience PhD
life….again…
Firstly:
In http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/
SANE2004MARCHAL.pdf is:
Definition:
“Fundamental Physics: I define it by the correct-by-definition
PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 1:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Kaboom
On 24 Aug 2005, at 02:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't even get past the axioms of COMP. They just don’t hold unless I delude
myself that the universe is driv
On 24 Aug 2005, at 02:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I can't even get past the axioms of COMP. They just don’t hold unless I delude myself that the universe is driven by some mechanism implementing the underlying 'ruleness' we observe. I don't think so at all. If comp is true then there is no primitiv
10 matches
Mail list logo
