Bruno writes > > Look, it's VERY simple: take as a first baby-step the notion > > that the 19th century idea of a cosmos is basically true, and > > then add just the Big Bang. What we then have is a universe > > that operates under physical laws. So far---you'll readily > > agree---this is *very* simple conceptually. > > > > Next, look at this picture after 14.7 billion years. Guess > > what has evolved? Finally, there is intelligence and there > > are entities who can *perceive* all this grandeur. > > > > So, don't forget which came first. Not people. Not perceptions. > > Not ideas. Not dich an sich. Not 1st person. Not 3rd person. > > NOT ANY OF THIS NONSENSE. Keep to the basics and we *perhaps* > > will have a chance to understand what is going on. > > > But both the quantum facts, and then just the comp hyp are incompatible > with that type of naive realism.
At this level of discourse, dear Bruno, I don't give a _______ for your *hypothesis*. Moreover, please google for "naive realism". You'll find that this is the world view of children who have *no* idea of the processes by which their brains are embedded in physical reality. Since no one claims to be a naive realist, this rises to the level of insult. But then, I'm not too surprised that the most *basic* understanding of our world has been forgotten by some who deal everyday with only the most high level abstractions. Lee
