Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mitch Blevins who wrote (5255)	12/20/2000 5:38:25 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

cosmic, would you agree to the following? Yes, I think so. But largely it is a reordering of my principles with a focus on the physical as opposed to the informational. My model tends to ignore the physical, and focuses on the informational POV. Are these resolvable into a unified theory? I suspect not. The item 3 "physical" word bothers me because I don't know for sure what that means, especially in this informational model context. What is "physical"? This is rhetorical: I think I know what it means but how is this different from the coding on top of it. For example, is a random pile of silver atoms the same as those that form an image? If so, how? If not, why not? This seems to be the core of the classification problem: mind or body centered metaphysics. I tend to choose the former but recognize that pragmatically, the later also works. I don't will my groceries into the cart!