Dear Bruno,
Needless to say I feel honored that you've taken
the time to answer my naive questions. But since you invite such
questions, I do have a problem with the phrase highlighted below.
Exactly what feature of the "fundamental status of physics" is
questioned by comp? Is it just the insistence on a substrate of matter?
If *all *the laws of physics (in the real TOE) can be generated
(duplicated) by pure mathematics, isn't the distinction a trivial
semantic one solved by one sweep of Occam's razor? Do you view the idea
of "matter" as somehow inhibiting the pace of scientific discovery or as
the basis of a dangerous, quasi-mystical, pseudo-religious cult? Just
curious. Best,
marty a.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Yes. If you mean matter by "fundamental matter".
>
> It does not mean the Higgs boson is an illusion (in case the LHC
> shows it). It means that the idea that there are fundamental stuffy
> material things constituting the observable reality is an illusion.
> The content of physics is not necessarily wrong, *it is the
> fundamental status of physics (in the real TOE) which is questioned by
> the comp hypothesis.* (By *real* TOE, I mean a TOE which does not
> eliminate consciousness).
>
>
>
>
> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Nov 18 2008 - 14:18:15 PST