Re: Rucker's Infinity, Tegmark's TOE, and Cantor's Absolute Infinity

From: Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 17:01:48 +0200

Dear John,

Bohm's statement is quite coherent with his philosophy.

He believes in a unique material reality (although he does
not believe in a wave packet reduction, particles follow
only one branch of the universal superpositions, with Bohm).
So Bohm is obliged to abandon comp (cf comp entails the many
world, even without QM).
I say more on Bohm in my CC&Q paper (see my URL).
Bohm's attitude illustrates the link between
COMP and the many-idea.
Remember that people like Everett or Deutsch follows
comp (which doesn't mean they have seen all the consequences).

In its "implicate order" Bohm is explicitely against comp
or even AI.

I like very much Bohm. He is clear and honest in its investigations.
Abandoning comp is natural for a Quantum Mechanician who want
keep ONE (substantial) universe.

Bruno Marchal

        ---Original message---

>Dear Bruno,
>
>you wrote:
>
> > In a nutshell I would say that natural numbers exists and no more
>> (like Pythagoreans!) ....<
>
>How do you relate to David Bohm's observation that "numbers
>do NOT exist in nature, only as the products of the human mind"?
>(I wouldn't mix rhythm or quantity with numbers, the digital constructs)
>
>(I did not want to burden the list. If you like and find it opportune
>in your line of discussion, you can include this into a list-reply.
>I don't care.)
>
>John Mikes
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bruno Marchal" <<mailto:marchal.domain.name.hidden>marchal.domain.name.hidden>
>To: <<mailto:Vikee1.domain.name.hidden>Vikee1.domain.name.hidden>;
><<mailto:everything-list.domain.name.hidden>everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
>Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 10:06 AM
>Subject: Re: Rucker's Infinity, Tegmark's TOE, and Cantor's Absolute Infinity
>
> > Hi Dave, welcome to the list!
>> S N I P
Received on Fri Sep 06 2002 - 08:05:35 PDT