RE: UDA revisited

From: Colin Geoffrey Hales <>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 15:37:43 +1100 (EST)

Ooops...I forgot the 'quantum level' issue in the paramecium discussion.

No. I would disagree. Quantum mechanics is just another "law of
appearances" - how the world appears when we look. The universe is not
made of quantum mechanics. It is made of 'something'. That 'something' is
behaving quantum mechanicially.

The model is a bunch of 'something' doing a 'model-dance' in a computer.
It does not do what the 'something' does in a paramecium. Hence whatever
is lost by changing the dance from the 'something dance' (quantum
mechanical or whatever) to the 'model-dance' will be lost to the model

I would hold that what is lost is the faculty for experience. The
paramecium includes all levels of the organisation of reality. No matter
how deep your model goes go you throw away whatever is underneath your
bottom layer of abstraction and then assume that does not matter. Big
mistake, IMO. Fixable, but not by modelling.

Does that make sense?

Colin Hales

 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 Sat Nov 25 2006 - 23:38:23 PST

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