Le 12-mai-05, à 05:53, Lee Corbin a écrit :
Bruno, I certainly wish you the absolute best of luck in
deriving a law of physics from comp! Getting a version
of string theory that afforded predictions would be as
nothing in comparison from starting from incompleteness
(in math) and deriving physics
Stathis writes
> [Lee wrote]
> > About observer-moments, I would say what LaPlace answered to
> > Napoleon about a deity: "I have no need of that hypothesis".
>
> [Bruno responded]
> > But you cannot say they does not exist. You would be lying to yourself. You
> > are living just one of them rig
Hal wrote
> Lee Corbin writes:
> > Why not instead adopt the scientific model? That is, that
> > we are three-dimensional creatures ensconced in a world
> > governed by the laws of physics, or, what I'll call the
> > "atoms and processes" model. About observer-moments, I would
> > say what LaPla
Bruno, Lee:
Le 10-mai-05, à 06:33, Lee Corbin a écrit :
Why not instead adopt the scientific model? That is, that
we are three-dimensional creatures ensconced in a world
governed by the laws of physics, or, what I'll call the
"atoms and processes" model.
Because we don't need that hypothesis.
Tha
Lee Corbin writes:
> Why not instead adopt the scientific model? That is, that
> we are three-dimensional creatures ensconced in a world
> governed by the laws of physics, or, what I'll call the
> "atoms and processes" model. About observer-moments, I would
> say what LaPlace answered to Napoleon
Le 10-mai-05, à 06:33, Lee Corbin a écrit :
Why not instead adopt the scientific model? That is, that
we are three-dimensional creatures ensconced in a world
governed by the laws of physics, or, what I'll call the
"atoms and processes" model.
Because we don't need that hypothesis.
That's nice bec
6 matches
Mail list logo
