ok thanks HF for the clarification. I didnt realize
all the recent threads on tegmark were also referring
to a tegmark-wheeler article.
fyi, here is the quote from gribbin. I havent noticed,
but is everyone aware of this book? good stuff.. from 1984,
a bit dated, but it keeps getting reprinted ap
VZ Nuri writes:
> hi all. I just read an amazing factoid in john gribbins
> "search for sch.cat". it says that wheeler, in spite
> of his initial enthusiasm for MWI & promoting it, and being
> the advisor to everett, eventually abandoned
> it, feeling it "carried too much metaphysical baggage"
> o
hi all. I just read an amazing factoid in john gribbins
"search for sch.cat". it says that wheeler, in spite
of his initial enthusiasm for MWI & promoting it, and being
the advisor to everett, eventually abandoned
it, feeling it "carried too much metaphysical baggage"
or something like that. I was
At 14:49 -0400 25/09/2002, Wei Dai wrote:
>I recommended Joyce more for its philosophy rather than its mathematics,
>but I'm glad you found that useful too.
I am indeed less sure about its philosophy. I guess this should have been
apparent from my comment of Newcomb paradox, which I have made bef
Title: Re: MWI of relativistic QM
At 13:09 -0400 25/09/2002, Wei Dai wrote:
Is there a paper or book that describes
this discrete minkowski multiverse
in more detail?
Tim gives some interesting references. A formidable paper on
discretization
is "Foundations of Discrete Physics (Working Docume
At 12:51 -0400 25/09/2002, Wei Dai wrote:
>If we can take the set of all deductive consequences of some axioms and
>call it a theory, then why can't we also take the set of their semantic
>consequences and call it a theory? In what sense is the latter more
>"technical" than the former? It's true
6 matches
Mail list logo
