- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Christopher Maloney <dude.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 23:35:34 -0400

Alastair Malcolm wrote:

*>
*

*> ----- Original Message -----
*

*> From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
*

*> >
*

*> > As for flying rabbits, one appeared on my ceiling as I was reading your
*

*> > post, but as it was only there for 10E-43 seconds, I did not notice it.
*

*> The
*

*> > odds against it remaining there for two consecutive Planck times are
*

*> > vanishingly small.
*

*>
*

*> Flying rabbits from contrived universes (ie from some of the more complex
*

*> mathematical structures which should outnumber our own (presumed) one if the
*

*> challenge to Tegmark's hypothesis is correct) do not have to obey the
*

*> Uncertainty Principle.
*

*>
*

*> Alastair
*

Right! Nothing "has to obey" the Uncertainty Principle. Remember that

the outcome of any experiment can only be predicted with a probability.

So it's "possible" that we could make consecutive alternate measurements

of an electron's position and momentum, and find that they seem to be

well defined. But that's not usually what is seen. The odds of that

are very small. I think (if I may be so bold) that James was trying

to point out that we are in a universe that has a lot of non-sensical

things going on - just very rarely.

If we assume that this idea of a measure over universes is possible to

define, then there *will* be some mathematically derivable laws of

physics (read, "laws of probability") based on the relative SSA -

that is, what the next conscious observer moment will be, given the

current conscious observer moment. We'd like to show that these laws

are the ones we observe. Regardless, it seems plausible to assume that

the laws connecting observer moments when the observer is, say, 10

years old, are qualitatively the same as those when she's, say, 30

years old. Hence consistency. Hence, no flying rabbits.

Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 23:35:34 -0400

Alastair Malcolm wrote:

Right! Nothing "has to obey" the Uncertainty Principle. Remember that

the outcome of any experiment can only be predicted with a probability.

So it's "possible" that we could make consecutive alternate measurements

of an electron's position and momentum, and find that they seem to be

well defined. But that's not usually what is seen. The odds of that

are very small. I think (if I may be so bold) that James was trying

to point out that we are in a universe that has a lot of non-sensical

things going on - just very rarely.

If we assume that this idea of a measure over universes is possible to

define, then there *will* be some mathematically derivable laws of

physics (read, "laws of probability") based on the relative SSA -

that is, what the next conscious observer moment will be, given the

current conscious observer moment. We'd like to show that these laws

are the ones we observe. Regardless, it seems plausible to assume that

the laws connecting observer moments when the observer is, say, 10

years old, are qualitatively the same as those when she's, say, 30

years old. Hence consistency. Hence, no flying rabbits.

-- Chris Maloney http://www.chrismaloney.com "Knowledge is good" -- Emil FaberReceived on Wed Jul 07 1999 - 21:01:58 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST
*