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

From: jamikes <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:55:28 -0400

Brent wrote
Friday, September 06, 2002 11:48 AM:
(Subject: Re: Rucker's Infinity, Tegmark's TOE, and Cantor's
AbsoluteInfinity - not a true subject here):

> On 06-Sep-02, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > Dear John,
> > Bohm's statement is quite coherent with his philosophy.
SNIP
>
> Bohm's QM is empirically identical with non-relativistic
> Schroedinger QM - makes exactly the same predictions. So what
> does it have to do with AI and the duplication of brains?
> Brent Meeker

As Bruno correctly indicated I asked about an observation of Bohm -
the openminded philosopher - IMO so different from the professional
physicist pictured mostly in his posthumus "writings" (and early ones
aswell, before his decade+long philosophical work).
My parentetical remark excluding rhythm and quantity indicated only
that a correlation of these with numbers does not indicate any natural
occurrence of numbers, rather a human attribution - a predicating.
I believe the connection to "AI and duplication of brains" is misplaced.

I hope the "construction" of Bruno's thesis's English version will come
up soon, because I don't trrust my feeble French to read "more about Bohm" -
what Bruno indicated to be found in his website.

And Brent, thank you for the D.Adams quote.

 John Mikes
Received on Fri Sep 06 2002 - 15:55:39 PDT