Re: Implications of MWI

From: John M <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:14:31 -0400

Russell, thanks for the non-argumentative position (understatement, but I
mean it so).
Russell wrote:
-------------------
I am merely pointing out the necessity of TIME. One can treat it as an axiom
(as I do), seek further justification in terms of other axioms
(eg computationalism), or provide a model that doesn't satisfy it in
order to show it is not necessary.

I appreciate that you are attempting to do the third of these options,
and I will be most intrigued with your results should you obtain
any. In the meantime, I find it more productive to work with it as an
axiom, and to provide some "handwaving" justifications for it.
--------------------
You use "axiom" as if it were something reasonable. It is a postulate to
facilitate an idea (theory/rem?) within a model. So are 'givens'. - Even
'emergent marvels' point to our ignorance about the origin of a composite of
viable processes producing them.

I don't claim a productive practicality - the idea of thinking (about)
wholism is a starting line, not even ready for "obtaining results".
Let's talk about it 2-300 years from now.
Some 'dreamers' paved the way for advancement.

Cheers

John M


----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Standish" <r.standish.domain.name.hidden>
To: "John M" <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Cc: "Jesse Mazer" <lasermazer.domain.name.hidden>; <ncsamish.domain.name.hidden.com>;
<everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: Implications of MWI
Received on Sat Apr 30 2005 - 18:28:20 PDT