I'm of the all-things-that-can-exist-do-so stripe; it might seem unnecessary
and indulgent to posit all these extra possible realities, but for me
existence is the easy part and stripping away the chaff is hard.
You have this big set of Things What Exist; it's atemporal and eternal, and
nothing
And of course you could always add ASPECT 0 - all possible instances of
ASPECT 1
- 3-line Narnia -
C.S. LEWIS: Finally, a Utopia ruled by children and populated by talking
animals.
THE WITCH: Hello, I'm a sexually mature woman of power and confidence.
C.S. LEWIS: Ah! Kill it,
Michael Rosefield wrote:
And of course you could always add ASPECT 0 - all possible instances
of ASPECT 1
Yeah.. a new 'science of universe construction'? I wonder if there's a
name for something like that? unigenesis?
As I said in my post to Jesse:
- - -- - - - - -
aspect 1 is NOT
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 01:59:46PM +1000, Colin Hales wrote:
aspect 1 describes the underlying reality, which is responsible for
consciousness! It is actually the only thing 'reified'. We scientists
are made of it, not literal 'appearances'.
aspect 1 has been declared merely verboten!?!
From the everything list FYI
Brent Meeker wrote:
Why would you take Stapp as exemplifying the state of QM? ISTM that the
decoherence program plus Everett and various collapse theories
represents the current state of QM.
Brent Meeker
Jesse Maser wrote:
The copenhagen
Colin Hales wrote:
From the everything list FYI
Brent Meeker wrote:
Why would you take Stapp as exemplifying the state of QM? ISTM that the
decoherence program plus Everett and various collapse theories
represents the current state of QM.
Brent Meeker
Jesse Maser wrote:
Jesse Maser wrote:
The copenhagen interpretation is just one of several ways of thinking about
QM, though. Other interpretations, like the many-worlds interpretation or the
Bohm interpretation, do try to come up with a model of an underlying reality
that gives rise to the events we
Brent Meeker wrote:
Colin Hales wrote:
From the everything list FYI
Brent Meeker wrote:
Why would you take Stapp as exemplifying the state of QM? ISTM that the
decoherence program plus Everett and various collapse theories
represents the current state of QM.
Brent
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Jesse Maser wrote:
The copenhagen interpretation is just one of several ways of thinking about
QM, though. Other interpretations, like the many-worlds interpretation or
the Bohm interpretation, do try to come up with a model of an underlying
reality that gives rise
As I said in the first post: aspect 1 is descriptions of an underlying
reality. aspect 2 is also a set of descriptions, but merely of
generalisations/abstractions of the appearances in an observer made of . Both
aspects are equally empirically supported. You can't give either aspect
Jesse Mazer wrote:
As I said in the first post: aspect 1 is descriptions of an underlying
reality. aspect 2 is also a set of descriptions, but merely of
generalisations/abstractions of the appearances in an observer made of .
Both aspects are equally empirically supported. You can't
And now, in Henry Stapp’s book I find the taboo laid out in plain view for
all to see. It’s dressed up as the ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’ and it’s been
adopted as a cult, which I will now outline by quotation: (see page 11).
“Let there be no doubt about this point. The original form of
12 matches
Mail list logo
