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

From: jamikes <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:13:15 -0400

Re: Rucker's Infinity, Tegmark's TOE, and Cantor's AbBruno M wrote:
  Friday, September 06, 2002 11:01 AM
  Subject: Re: Rucker's Infinity, (or whatever)
  Dear John,
  Bohm's statement is quite coherent with his philosophy.
  SNIP

  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

  I do not recall (read Bohm hurriedly in the early 90s) Bohm having excluded AI or even comp from 'his' implicate, the ('so far' and shrinking)
  unknown, as I took it. I felt the implicate (order?) as an 'open unknown'.
  Furthermore it was a surprise to me reading "Bohm a QM-cian".
  I thought he wanted to bring QM and Relativity together after 1952 .
  Then turned into a (nat. sci.) philosopher. A good one IMO.
  Anyway my thoughts are those of an outsider. I may be wrong.

  John M
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


         ---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)
  John Mikes
Received on Fri Sep 06 2002 - 15:23:20 PDT