Re: Interested in thoughts on this excerpt from Martin Rees

From: 1Z <>
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 08:18:56 -0700

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 08-août-06, à 08:58, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
> >>
> >> Not at all. I mean it in the operational physical sense. Like
> >> observing
> >> your hand with a microscope, or looking closely to the "path" of an
> >> electron.
> >
> > Could you say more about this? If you examine an object more and more
> > closely you see more and more detail, and I understand that you have
> > other
> > arguments suggesting that this is all due to the ensemble of
> > computations
> > underpinning the physical reality, but are you suggesting that the
> > fact that
> > you can observe these levels is *by itself* evidence for these levels
> > and
> > sublevels of computation?
> Comp predicts that if you look closely enough you will see reality
> blurring. The evidence from empirical science (quantum physics) is that
> indeed reality blurs, but of course "informal comp" does not give the
> details of the blurring process.

One thing we *do* know for sure is that Harry Potter universes --
*literal* HP universes -- are computable, since the special effects
in the Harry Potter movies were computer generated!

Therefore the problem with everythingism is that it predicts *too much*
weirdness. (And, as I am forever pointing out,
materialism-contingency-empiricism [*] doesn't exclude quantum
fuzziness or many
worlds, providing there are contingent facts about how much fuzziness
and how many worlds).

[*] my term for the non-everythingist philosophy.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Tue Aug 08 2006 - 11:20:58 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST