RE: Cardinality of the MW

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 14:16:24 +0100

I am toying with the idea that all laws, and all constants are determined
*purely* by the weak anthropic principle. And the rest is chance.
James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gilles HENRI [SMTP:Gilles.Henri.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 1999 1:52 PM
> To: Higgo James
> Cc: everything-list
> Subject: RE: Cardinality of the MW
>
> >A breath of fresh air, Gilles. As I just wrote to Chris:
> >
> >I believe that the idea of 'which me I am' is a red herring. Everything
> is
> >subjective, and can only be seen by an observer with a partial view of
> the
> >whole of reality. What the observer sees is determined by the partialness
> of
> >his view. So 'galaxies' are also an emergent phenomenon. The idea of two
> of
> >'you' makes even less sense that one of 'you'. And two of 'you'
> separated
> >by galaxies makes no sense at all. You are in the eye of the beholder,
> who
> >can choose to see you 'here' or 'here' or wherever.
> >
> >James
>
> James, we totally agree, at least on this!
> For me the most irritating problem is what makes us "see" this partial
> view
> of reality, I mean what bounds this view. What forbids to perceive
> multiple
> realities in the conscious process ? It means that somehow the existence
> of
> consciousness is linked to macroscopic, quasi classical states, but these
> states have no precise definition, because they all allow some "quantum
> fuzziness". So it very hard to link a precise conscious state to a precise
> physical state, but it is also hard to quantify how fuzzy our physical
> state can be...
>
> Gilles
>
Received on Tue Jul 20 1999 - 06:26:36 PDT