Re: Isn't this a good point

From: Lennart Nilsson <>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 13:17:01 +0200

I was under the impression that interaction has to do with information
transfer and that that takes care of the fact that there cannot be an
information transfer without physicalness. At least according to this

"Distinct memory states label and 'inhabit' different branches of Everett's
'Many Worlds' Universe. In this manner, the distinction between epistemology
and ontology is washed away: There can be no information without physical
representation. Persistence of correlations is all that is needed to recover
'familiar reality'."
arXiv: quant- ph/ 0105127 v1 24 2001



Wojciech Hubert Zurek

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruno Marchal" <>
To: "Lennart Nilsson" <>;
<>; <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: Isn't this a good point

> At 9:27 +0200 22/05/2002, Lennart Nilsson wrote (on the everything-list):
> >In the Motion Mountain project
> >Schiller defines existence such: "(physical) existence is the ability to
> >describe interactions." And furthermore explains this by saying: "It is
> >pointless to discuss whether a physical concept 'exists' or whether it is
> >'only' an abstraction used as a tool for descriptions of observations.
> >two possibilities coincide. The point of dispute can only be whether the
> >descriptions provided by a concept is or is not precise."
> >Isn't that a good point!!!
> Sure. But I don't think my old friend Christoph really follows it :-)
> Also what is exactly an interaction? You should try to describe it
> without postulating implicitely physicalness if you don't want to apply
> 'exists' to physical concept.
> Perhaps "Geometry of Interaction" by the logician Jean Yves Girard
> is interesting from that point of view. In the same regard the
> work by another logician Vaughan Pratt on the mind/body problem
> (
> is quite relevant.
> Bruno
Received on Wed May 22 2002 - 04:11:36 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST