Absolute vs. Relative

From: Devin Harris <harrisdev.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 12:53:11 -0700

Jacques writes
<< The MWI is deterministic, so the standard idea of probability
does
 not apply. >>

GS Levy
Not true.

A dice has six sides, and a dice throw will generate one number in the
range
from 1 to 6, exactly in that range, not more not less. This fact is
deterministic. However, the ACTUAL number that the dice will produce is
probabilistic.

Similarly, all the possible links allowing consciousness to propagate
from
one frame in the MW to another are deterministic that is, constrained by
the
physical laws, and mirroring these laws, our rationality. However, the
actual
frame where one particular conscious PERSPECTIVE will find itself, is
probabilistic. It's all in the eyes of the beholder. This is precisely
the
essence of quantum indeterminacy.

Simple and clear. Well put.

<< Either it exists or it doesn't.>>

I think the root of the difference between Jacques and the rest of us is
in
our perception of the world. Jacque believes in an absolute physical
world
and we believe in a relative one. Which is it? For sure I don't know.
However, let me make some analogies, and Jacques is welcome to say that
this
is like <<Given A, B ...Therefore everyone will believe C. ">>

Does motion exist or is it in the eyes of the beholder? As Einstein said
"in
the eyes of the observer?"

Does light require a substrate to propagate? Does consciousness require
a
physical implementation? And by the way, what is the meaning of
"physical
implementation?" and how is it related to our rationality?

Is the measure of the Empire State Building increased because one or one

thousand or one million people have seen it? Is the measure of a
conscious
experience increased because it's played back once or replayed many
times?

I already know Jacques' answer. (If A and B then C).

Why does Jacques believe in the absolute and we believe in the relative?

(This is just my guess) Maybe it's in our perception of the size of the
MW.
Is it finite or infinite? Is it the same as c, the continuum. Or larger?

The relativity of our experience is not exclusive to the world being
absolute. Relativity should never have been applied as if it referenced
absolute reality. Relativity is a feature of time as measured by clocks.
It is a consequence of our subjective experience. Its cause also relates
intimately to quantum mechanics. Given that we understand quantum
mechanics as you described it, there is no valid reason to assume
relativity describes reality. Rather the opposite is true. Relative or
not, the universe exists.

Your quite right about the issue relating to the questions above. Is the
universe complete. There are so many different ways to be finite or
infinite, but the fundamental difference of opinion I have noticed in
this group concerns whether or not time moves into the future endlessly,
non-repeating, expanding continuously into unique configs, regardless of
how boring or creative, so that at any given moment, time does not
extend infinitely into the future. Infinity in the direction of the
future is never actualized. Or, is the MWs complete in an ultimate or
objective reality, in which case time either either ends, as I have
suggested at a common future, such as omega zero, or there is an
objective reality distinct from our subjective experience of time, in
which an infinite period of time is somehow completed, which simply
involves seeing infinity as an actuality rather than a process.

You mentioned frames. That brings up the issue of how defined each frame
or moment of time is. Again, quantum mechanics. I expect most would
agree that even in the now, the world around us is defined (to us) no
farther than our observation of it. Its not difficult to imagine the set
of all other possible space-time worlds, all configs within the wave
function of possible todays, let's say exactly 15 billion years after
the Big Bang. Surely that set of other worlds is both definitive and
infinite.

>From an absolute perspective, any given point within space is surrounded
by all possible frames. I don't understand not seeing all those worlds
as real, existing permanently, and ourselves, being a subjective
observer passing through frame-time, a time created literally by the
existence of many frames all existing simultaneously. To me, nothing
else does justice to the knowledge of MWs. This in contrast to the image
of each observer somehow having an influence on the measure of reality.
Isn't that just egocentrism? It appears so from a distance.

Devin Harris

Note: The world cannot be absolute within a greater relative reality
however relativity can exist within an absolute world.
Received on Sat Jul 10 1999 - 12:54:07 PDT