RE: Everything is Just a Memory

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 11:25:14 -0000

I don't see the need for alternative theories. And like Liebnitz's monads,
each containing an entire world, there is no need for communication between
observer moments.

It would be nice to derive the laws of physics from WAP but I am not sure
that is possible, or that it would make us happier.

James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marchal [SMTP:marchal.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 5:46 PM
> To: Higgo James
> Subject: RE: Everything is Just a Memory
>
> >Well if you can accept that obsever moments exist without an observer,
> then
> >we are on track
>
> Sure we are on track. Remember that our initial trifle here
> is related to the measure question.
>
> I can accept observer moment without observer (certainly without
> what is taken as physical observer). So the question of "the person"
> is less demanding (I even guess we disagree there only on
> terminology questions).
>
> The real problem I have is your insistence that the observer
> moments are totally unrelated, or that there is no measure-like problems.
>
> You are telling us that the SSA
> is useless, and you are dropping most of the "theories" proposed here,
> without even a suggestion for alternatives.
>
> We are on track about the ontology.
> But, are we on track on the epistemology ?
>
> It is nice to understand the laws of physics come from WAP and/or COMP.
> The problem now is to derive the laws of physics from WAP and/or COMP.
>
> And as I said, without measure-like concept, without structure on the
> set of observer-moments, I don't see any ways to derive physics.
> Comp entails some natural measure on the set of observer-moments, why
> not use them?
>
> Bruno
Received on Mon Jan 24 2000 - 03:26:47 PST