[OT] "Pre-announcement" of Python-based "computing appliance"project.

[Ville Vainio]

>>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Waterbury <golux at comcast.net> writes:

    >>> A thing like "probability" just can't exist in the ultimate Reality.

    Stephen> What makes you so sure that "ultimate Reality" is a well-formed
    Stephen> (logically consistent) concept?  QM may be the ultimate framework

I have yet to see nothing indicating the opposite. Even the logical
inconsistence would have something behind it, directing the process.

    Stephen> for an observer/observable-based theory of physics, and
    Stephen> since the observer/observable paradigm is fundamental to
    Stephen> science, it might be "as good as it gets", in which case
    Stephen> an "ultimate reality" that is meaningful in the context
    Stephen> of the scientific method might well require probability.

"Ultimate reality" whose meaning is limited by the context of
scientific method isn't all that "ultimate", is it? ;-)

    Stephen> Of course, if you want to transcend observer/observable,
    Stephen> you have to go beyond science, and into the realm of
    Stephen> "Cosmajoonity" (see Freeman Dyson's delightful book
    Stephen> "Disturbing the Universe" :).

Going beyond science is exactly what I'm after when talking about
ultimate reality - it's mostly a "religious" concept, more relevant to
a mystic having a yogic peak experience than a scientist. Still, I'm
delighted to see anti-deterministic theories being debunked also in
the scientific circles.

Scientists are perhaps a bit too eager to think that they are
beginning to understand ultimate reality when they just have some new
theories that support their empiric data.

BTW, congratulations on being the first one to use the word
"Cosmajoonity" on the internet, according to google at least :-).

-- 
Ville Vainio   http://tinyurl.com/2prnb