Hi Godfrey,
I answer some relevant (imo) comments in one post (for avoiding
mailbox abuse).
For your others paragraphs, I can only suggest you study the UDA theorem
On 01 Sep 2005, at 16:20, kurtleegod.domain.name.hidden wrote:
>
> [RussellStandish]
> How does this affect Bruno's UDA? As far as I can tell, steps 1-6 go
> through as before, but after that the conclusions are not so clear.
>
> [GogfreyK]
> But isn't step 1 the YD?
Good remark! (And Russell's answer does not really answers).
Glad to see you are going from step 0 (YD hypothesis mainly) to step
1 (classical teleportation). What about step 2?
CF:
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004Slide.pdf
Explanation here:
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/
SANE2004MARCHAL.htm
> I would leave the "soul" out of my statements. The soul-body
> problem was solved long time ago.
? What is the solution?
> Sorry, but I don't follow here! You get physics but you loose
> theology!!! Why do you need the theology?
Is not comp, through the YD, not already a hope in a form of
reincarnation?
I think we can have a scientific attitude (modesty, right of
questioning hypotheses, methodological agnosticism) in the
fundamental matter. I'm just interested in "theology" and
particularly in "cosmogony": where and why information, sensations,
space and time come from.
> I guess you are right. I think I am more confused about what you
> are saying than when we started this exchange.
It is all normal. I see you don't grasp the point. More in my answer
to Lee Corbin, about "computationalism".
About the links: I know them. Thanks anyway.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Fri Sep 02 2005 - 06:11:58 PDT