On 8/4/2011 2:59 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 4 August 2011 18:44, meekerdb wrote:
I don't see how life (including us) could exist except at a quasi-classical
level. Evolution needs reliable replication to work with. Given that we
evolved as quasi-classical beings, it follows that our perceptio
On 4 August 2011 18:44, meekerdb wrote:
> I don't see how life (including us) could exist except at a quasi-classical
> level. Evolution needs reliable replication to work with. Given that we
> evolved as quasi-classical beings, it follows that our perception,
> psychology, and interaction with
On 8/4/2011 9:41 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Hi Stephen
Thanks for the link - very enjoyable talk. As far as I could follow
it, he seemed to be saying that the differentiation of decoherent
"worlds" is in the final analysis a "psychological" matter - i.e. that
quasi-classical "reality", as ordinaril
ut perhaps
this signals an implicit belief that micro-physical-functional, or
ontological/epistemological, elements must always play a dual role in
any intelligible account of our situation.
I wonder what you thought.
David
On 25 July 2011 05:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would
Hi,
I would like to recommend this video of a talk by David Wallace on
the subject of Decoherence and Ontology in MWI. http://vimeo.com/5406821
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to
5 matches
Mail list logo