David Nyman wrote: > On Jul 6, 2:56 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> It >> is a unexpected (by me) discovery that quanta belongs to that sharable >> first person view (making the comp-QM a bit more psychological than >> some Many-Worlder would perhaps appreciate. > > Doesn't this strike you as perhaps consistent with what I've been > saying about self-relation, or reflexive existence? IOW, quanta - as > they appear to *us* (how else?) - exist reflexively. Comp, like any > 'TOE', is a "gods' eye view", and I've been trying to convince Torgny > that we shouldn't fool ourselves into mistaking such conceptions for > modes of existing. We may nonetheless ask - with great care - "what > might the consequences be if our situation were - in some (tricky) > sense - to look like this from a gods' eye view?" But this is a > (tricky, tricky) mode of enquiry, not a mode of existing. > > 'The One' is also a mode of enquiry (no less tricky, of course): it > seems to suggest that the mode of existing of both the qualia and the > quanta may be ineliminably reflexive: the splintering of a singular > process of self-reflexion. Self: because there is no other; > reflexion: because there is no other relation. > > David
I draw a complete blank when I read your use of the word "reflexive". What exactly do you mean? How would you distinguish reflexive from non-reflexive existence? Do numbers exist reflexively? Do somethiings exist non-reflexively? What is "self-reflexion"? What's the operational definition of reflexive? Brent Meeker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
