[MD] Bo's weak versus strong interpretation of quantum physiks

[Magnus Berg]

> [Krimel]
> Descartes was trying to find something about which it was impossible to be
> skeptical. Out of the line of argument leading up to the cogito we get the
> idea of clever demons who could deceive us about everything we experience.
> That would include things like: I have a brain and physical body or that
> there is a physical world at all (something dmb remain confused about. For
> example, I doubt that he would buy your claim that there is a physical world
> in which you have a body.).
>
> For about the umpteenth time I regard Pirsig's work especially in ZMM as a
> western explication of Taoism and as such very useful and valuable. When it
> strays from that track it becomes, er, uh, less valuable.

I know you do. I was just trying, for the gazillionth time, show how the 
MoQ regards Descarte's reasoning.

I hope you don't think that Descarte's reasoning is completely devoid of 
underlying assumptions? He of course really tries to make it look like 
it, but you still see the SOM line of thinking there.

But if you take the MoQ, which is another set of assumptions about the 
world. One big difference is that its assumptions are explicitly stated. 
Then you get a stronger result from the "I think" statement.

I know you don't consider the levels a "useful" part of the MoQ, because 
you say they break so easily. And I insist on waving at the windmills 
and keep yelling they hold. So, convince me how to break them. It's the 
scientific way to proceed. (Oh, and I just love to hear all complaints 
about the errors of the scientific method.)

	Magnus