Re: Talk by David Wallace

2011-08-04 Thread Stephen P. King
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

Re: Talk by David Wallace

2011-08-04 Thread David Nyman
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

Re: Talk by David Wallace

2011-08-04 Thread meekerdb
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

Re: Talk by David Wallace

2011-08-04 Thread David Nyman
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

Talk by David Wallace

2011-07-24 Thread Stephen P. King
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