From: David Bowman (David_Bowman@georgetowncollege.edu)
Date: Thu Jul 03 2003 - 16:07:35 EDT
Regarding Richard McGough's comment to George:
> ...
>Of course, David Bowman's point concerning distinguishability is highly
>significant and must be addressed by Tegmark if he wants to make his
>case.
Actually, I was kind of hoping that Richard would calmly address it if
he wanted to make *his* case against Tegmark.
>But I have no interest in doing his work for him. The fact remains that
>his argument is fatally flawed as it stands.
It may be, but Richard has not demonstrated it yet.
>If he want's to resurrect it using real qunatum statitistacal mechanics
>and a valid model of the physical system, then more power to him.
It hasn't yet been demonstrated that Tegmark's argument needs any
resurrection. It may be that the news of its death has been somewhat
premature.
As far as the topic of the certainty of the claim made on the SciAm
cover goes, I agree with that of the others who said that Scientific
American could have been more circumspect on its May 03 cover. I also
have noticed that in recent years that Scientific American's quality
seems to have slipped, and have detected vibes of a more anti-religious
tone. However, I'm not sure if Shermer's presence at the magazine is
more of a cause or more of an effect of its seemingly progressively
anti-religious trend.
>But I don't see why his thesis is worth discussing until then.
Suit yourself.
David Bowman
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 03 2003 - 16:08:14 EDT