Re: Summary
I guess I'm not too interested in worlds that are not self-observed, but admit their existence for the sake of various arguments. Clearly formal systems without concious entities exist in a mathematical sense - for most purposes, I don't believe it actually matters whether they physically exist. Cheers In a message dated 99-10-05 01:45:10 EDT, Russell Standish writes: Hmm... I would for the most part follow the many perspective interpretation, however I consider that perspectives without conscious observers may also be considered to exist, (in as much as they are self-consistent) in that they may be able to be imagined by conscious observers elsewhere in the plenitude. A perspective world without a conscious observer, seems to be a contradiction in terms. Yet you make the point that such a world can exist in the imagination of an observer elsewhere in the Plenitude. This world then exists or is simulated or dreamed in the observer's mind and is in fact observed by the observer's mind's eye. Is there an identical world out of his mind and in the Plenitude? If there is, we must go back to Leibniz Identity Principle (LIP). Are the world in the mind and the world in the Plenitude one and the same or are they different? If they are the same, then in a sense these worlds are observed by the observer's mind's eye. If they are different then what is the nature of this difference? The difference is not inherent in the worlds themselves. It lies in the presence or absence of a simulating observer, property which is outside these worlds! This is a contradiction. Thus, it appears that the only way out is to accept LIP for this particular case. The other case of a perspective world without a conscious observer, and which does not exist in any observer's mind is definitely a contradiction in terms. Such a world is just portion of the Plenitude which is out of reach of consciousness possibly because its inherent self contradictions prevents consciousness from arising within it or from imagining it. Do such worlds exist? In other words are there portions of the Plenitude which are inaccessible? I think that in this case, the verb to be loses its meaning and I rather not discuss it further. George Levy Dr. Russell StandishDirector High Performance Computing Support Unit, University of NSW Phone 9385 6967 Sydney 2052 Fax 9385 6965 Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
Delivery failure notification
With reference to your message with the subject: Re: Fabric of Reality One or more addresses in your message have failed with the following responses from the mail transport system: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User 'lamh1' is not authorised to use mail. Should you need assistance, please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Returned message follows - Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from nyota.unn.ac.uk by ALDEAN.UNN.AC.UK (Mercury 1.13); Thu, 7 Oct 99 3:18:23 GMT Received: from mx1.eskimo.com by nyota.unn.ac.uk with SMTP (XT-PP) with ESMTP; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 04:17:40 +0100 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA20165; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 19:48:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 19:48:19 -0700 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 22:42:55 -0400 From: Christopher Maloney [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: everything-list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fabric of Reality References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: 3MyUw.0.0x4.pd0_t@mx1 Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailing-List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] archive/latest/1236 X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: list Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I also had mixed feelings about this book. Read my review at http://www.chrismaloney.com/hobbies/books/for.html if you're interested. Higgo James wrote: Yes, and Deutsch also talks baloney about omega point, but his explanation of 'time, the first quantum concept' is crystal. I've ordered modal logic, but I'm not looking forward to receiving it. -Original Message- From: Marchal [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 05, 1999 1:41 PM To: Russell Standish Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Summary Fair enough. Modal logic is where I lost you in your thesis - hopefully I will time to read your suggested introductory book on it. Nice. I would add Deutsch's Foundations of Reality. It has some particularly pertinent comments on Solipsism and on the Free Will vs Determinism issue. You mean his Fabric of Reality. I like it very much. I agree with him when he explains that the two slit experiment with individual photon is an almost direct evidence for multiple worlds. I appreciate also the interpretation of Popper. However, I deeply disagree with what he says about Church's thesis. More on this later, without doubt. Bruno. -- Chris Maloney http://www.chrismaloney.com Donuts are so sweet and tasty. -- Homer Simpson
