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

From: <GSLevy.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 20:38:08 EDT

<<

George Levy writes

* >
*

* > This said, I find it difficult to talk about increase and decrease and
*

making

* > comparisons of the measure when the quantity in question is infinite.
*

* >
*

* > Measure is not finite. This would violate the principle of plenitude and
*

it

* > would require a reason for measure to be any particular size.
*

Russell Standish responds

Remember we are restricting our attention to a self-aware subsystem

(eg one called Russell Standish) of the Quantum Mechanics subsystem of

the everything universe. The principle of plenitude can only apply to

the whole everything universe, not to well defined subsystems like the

MWI.

Now the measure of Russell Standish is a finite quantity, and is

calculated by the formula m_{RS}(t) = <\Psi(t)|P_{RS}|\Psi(t)>, where

\Psi(t) is the wavefunction of the multiverse, and P_{RS} is the

projection operator corresponding to Russell Standish. It doesn't

matter that we don't exactly know what \Psi(t) or P_{RS} are - however

they do exist as part of the MWI mathematical structure.

* >>
*

Russell, you have made an interesting point. You have separated the concept

of plenitude from the MWI. According to you, the MWI is only a subset of the

Plenitude. I am not sure if I agree with this but the point is well taken. I

certainly think that the MWI is a manifestation of the plenitude. Why should

the MWI be of lesser size than the Plenitude? I don't have an answer for this.

You also maintain that "you" are "finite." Let us discuss the meaning of

"you" and "finite." What do you mean when you talk about the entity Russell

Standish. How much variations from the nominal point "Russell Standish as

described on August 27th at exactly 4PM Australian time, along the continuum

of the wave function are you willing to accept? Is Russell Standish on the

28th at 4 PM still Russell Standish? How about a variation of Russell that

never materialized in "our world" but is well and kicking on another branch

that separated at 6 PM on August 27th?

In fact I believe that Russell Standish exists in an infinite number of

variations just as there are an infinite number of points on a line between

two points A and B. Russell Standish is as infinite as the continuum, and in

fact there is a path along the Russell Standish continuum that eventually

becomes George Levy. So we are all in a sense related through all the

conscious points (locus of consciousness?) in the MW that separate us. :-)

George Levy

Received on Sat Aug 28 1999 - 17:52:40 PDT

Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 20:38:08 EDT

<<

George Levy writes

making

it

Russell Standish responds

Remember we are restricting our attention to a self-aware subsystem

(eg one called Russell Standish) of the Quantum Mechanics subsystem of

the everything universe. The principle of plenitude can only apply to

the whole everything universe, not to well defined subsystems like the

MWI.

Now the measure of Russell Standish is a finite quantity, and is

calculated by the formula m_{RS}(t) = <\Psi(t)|P_{RS}|\Psi(t)>, where

\Psi(t) is the wavefunction of the multiverse, and P_{RS} is the

projection operator corresponding to Russell Standish. It doesn't

matter that we don't exactly know what \Psi(t) or P_{RS} are - however

they do exist as part of the MWI mathematical structure.

Russell, you have made an interesting point. You have separated the concept

of plenitude from the MWI. According to you, the MWI is only a subset of the

Plenitude. I am not sure if I agree with this but the point is well taken. I

certainly think that the MWI is a manifestation of the plenitude. Why should

the MWI be of lesser size than the Plenitude? I don't have an answer for this.

You also maintain that "you" are "finite." Let us discuss the meaning of

"you" and "finite." What do you mean when you talk about the entity Russell

Standish. How much variations from the nominal point "Russell Standish as

described on August 27th at exactly 4PM Australian time, along the continuum

of the wave function are you willing to accept? Is Russell Standish on the

28th at 4 PM still Russell Standish? How about a variation of Russell that

never materialized in "our world" but is well and kicking on another branch

that separated at 6 PM on August 27th?

In fact I believe that Russell Standish exists in an infinite number of

variations just as there are an infinite number of points on a line between

two points A and B. Russell Standish is as infinite as the continuum, and in

fact there is a path along the Russell Standish continuum that eventually

becomes George Levy. So we are all in a sense related through all the

conscious points (locus of consciousness?) in the MW that separate us. :-)

George Levy

Received on Sat Aug 28 1999 - 17:52:40 PDT

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