On 23 September 2013 13:16, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 12:29:30PM -0400, John Clark wrote: > > > > Bruno, if you have something new to say about this "proof" of yours then > > say it, but don't pretend that 2 years of correspondence and hundreds of > > posts in which I list things that I didn't understand about the first 3 > > steps didn't exist. If you can repair the blunders made in the first 3 > > steps then I'll read step 4, until then doing so would be ridiculous. > > > > John K Clark > > > > John, for the sake of the rest of us, it would be useful for you to > summarise just what the problems were that you found with the first > three steps. > > I have been on everything list since almost the beginning, and on FoR > (on and off) most of the time of its existence, too. I don't ever > remember a post from you along those lines, although I do recall > several references to it by Bruno, so no doubt it exists, and I just > missed it. I'm sceptical of the "hundreds of posts" claim, though. > > For me, my stopping point is step 8. I do mean to summarise the > intense discussion we had earlier this year on this topic, but that > will require an uninterrupted period of a day or two, just to pull it all > into a comprehensible document. > > I'm just now reading a reading a very long paper (more of a short > book, actually) by Scott Aaronson, on the subject of free will, which > is one of those rare works in that topic that is not > gibberish. Suffice it to say, that if he is ultimately convincing, he > would get me to stop at step 0 (ie COMP is false), but more on that > later when I finish it. > > I am still reading this, but I am a little disappointed that as far as I can see he hasn't mentioned Huw Price and John Bell's alternative formulation of Bell's Inequality, namely that it can be explained using microscopic time-symmetry. (This is despite mentioning Huw Price in the acknowledgements.) Maybe I will come across a mention somewhere as I continue, but I've been reading the section on Bell's Inequality and it doesn't seem that this potentially highly fruitful explanation - all the more so in that it doesn't require any new physics or even any new interpretations of existing physics - doesn't merit a mention, which is a shame because without taking account of that potential explanation, any subsequent reasoning that relies on Bell's Inequality is potentially flawed. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
