Re: I am not meant for your religion

From: Bruno Marchal <>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 09:15:34 +0100

Hi Tim,

I never have seen someone so electronically sensitive
(except perhaps my french director thesis ... ;-)

You know how much I have enjoyed your posts, and you know
how many mathematical structures we share the taste for.
(categories, modal logic, Baez stuff ...)

But, indeed, apparently we disagree somewhere.

But this is certainly not a reason to leave the list, ...unless
you believe we are dogmatical?

I think the disagreement occurred on the interpretation of
quantum mechanics. For example, when you told (to Hal Finney) ...

>I would say "nothing" about the past prior to a measurement
>being made. really talk like Bohr. The whole point of Everett is that
measurement is not something special.

So my feeling is that you have not yet really acknowledged the
enormity of the quantum. I would suggest you to read the original
papers by Everett(*). In my opinion NOBODY has ever been as clear
and honest as Everett on quantum mechanics.

But the misunderstanding between us is perhaps deeper. Everett
deduced the MANY (branches, relative-alternative states, worlds,
histories, .... call it like you want) FROM the Schroedinger Wave
Equation (SWE) + the computationalist theory of mind. Perhaps it
is comp which trouble you (you would not be the first!). My thesis
basically illustrated that most of the weirder aspect of the quantum are
not really consequences of SWE but are already consequences of comp.
(and that is relatively easy to show, actually I show more, I show
that the whole quantum must follow from the comp hyp).
In that case, i.e. the misunderstanding concerns comp, everybody
will learn something if you told us where
in the "universal dovetailer thought experiment (UDA)" you suspect a

I think that most of us have a scientific attitude, that is they
are modest and agnostic on the fundamental issues, and just try
to figure out what the others are trying to say and how to clarify the
difficulties, and even sometimes just to clarify where we disagree.

I told you that you came a little too early with your toposes
concerning the mathematical development of the "everything" type
of TOE. But, in case you leave the list I would say you would leave
it a little too early concerning the understanding of the main
fundamental issues.

Don't force us to wait for another reality for having the pleasure
to discuss with you ...


At 20:20 -0800 14/01/2003, Tim May wrote:
>In looking over the traffic, the archives, and the responses I have
>gotten, it's clear that I mistook this list ...

(*) Still hard to find? Tell me and I send you a photocopy.
Received on Thu Jan 16 2003 - 03:15:58 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:08 PST