Re: subjective reality

From: <kurtleegod.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:56:57 -0400

Hi Hal,

Thanks for your clarifying comment. Yes I think
that is the basis of my objection to Bruno and I
am glad someone has gotten it!


Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)

-----Original Message-----
From: Hal Finney <hal.domain.name.hidden>
To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
Sent: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: subjective reality

  I wade into this dispute with trepidation, because I think it is for
the most part incomprehensible. But I believe I see one place where
there was a miscommunication and I hope to clear it up.

Godfrey Kurtz wrote, to Bruno Marchal:

> You ARE doing something speculative whether you admit it or not! And I
> don't really have to study your argument because
> it is derived from premises that, you already admitted, are
> incompatible with the conclusions you claim.

What is this incompatibility? I believe he means it to be the
following.
Bruno had written:

> This I knew. The collapse is hardly compatible with comp (and thus
> YD). Even Bohm de Broglie theory, is incompatible with YD.

And yet, Bruno claims that his methods will lead to a derivation of
physics, which as far as we know includes QM. Godfrey sees the previous
quote from Bruno as indicating that his "Yes Doctor" starting point is
*incompatible* with QM. This is the contradiction that he sees.

I'll stop here and invite Godfrey to comment on whether this is the
admission of incompatibility between premises and conclusions that he
was referring to above.

Hal Finney



________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
Received on Wed Aug 31 2005 - 12:03:02 PDT