Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

From: John M <>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:02:46 -0500

Hal, a decade ago I 'read' your text easier than now: you firmed up your vocabulary - gradually out of my understanding. Sorry.
You seem to accept 'observer moments' and their interaction - even postulate one variable needed.

How long is an OM? a million years (cosmology) or a msec? Even if it is a portion of the latter, it makes the existence quite discontinuous - with all the difficulties in it. If it is continuous, then how can we talk about 'moments'? Should we assign an equal rate change to all existence (meaning: ONE selection for the OM length)? If it can be ANY, varying from the infinitely short to the other extreme, it would 'wash away' any sense of the meaning of an Observer MOMENT concept.
I think the OM is the figment of us, human observers, who want to use an 'understandable' model. [Like: numbers (in the human logic sense).]

Then, in view of the resulting 'unfathomable', we 'complicate' these models - originally created FOR comprehension - into incomprehensibility. [The way as e.g. to bridge Bohm's Explicate to the Implicate (by Nic de Cusa's 2nd principle, left out by Bohm: the "Complicate" - what I like to assign as math).]
That 'one' variable property you mention as needed for state- interaction is IMO not necessarily o n e within our (present) comprehension.
I like your 'abhorring' a selection: we could select only from within boundaries of our *present* epistemic cognitive inventory. (Or: from a much narrower one dating back 2500+ years or any time in between).

John Mikes

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Hal Ruhl
  Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 11:02 PM
  Subject: RE: ASSA and Many-Worlds

  One thing that I do not agree with is what seems to me to be a common
  holding regarding observer moments [by this I mean discrete states of
  universes [which are a sub set of possible "objects"]] is that they
  are each so far assumed to have a set of properties that are to some
  extent the same as other observer moments and to some extent
  different from all other observer moments [to distinguish individual
  moments] but nevertheless the properties of an individual observer
  moment are fixed for that observer moment.

  This to me is not logical since it is a selection and why that
  selection? Why not have some blend of variable properties and fixed
  properties as a possibility? This seems more in accord with a zero
  information ensemble.

  Further, if it is also held that observer moments can not interact -
  that is also a selection.

  I have proposed in other posts that there should be at least one
  variable property through which universe states can interact. The
  idea is that all possible universe states have a uniform existence
  property, but also can have an addition property that is a variable
  that one could call hyper existence through which they can
  interact. They interact by mutually altering each others hyper
  existence property. This variable property should not have just a
  binary set of values as a possibility but should also have many
  discrete levels as a possibility - again to avoid selection. In
  other words a universe state could experience a non square pulse of
  hyper existence which could span many of the "this particular state"
  to other state interactions. This would be like a "wave" of hyper
  existence propagating through some succession of universe
  states. Non binary, non square pulses of propagating hyper existence
  could be a basis for what is called "consciousness" - a "flow" of
  modulated awareness.

  Given a random component to the underlying dynamic [which I have also
  discussed ] some such wave propagations with non binary, non square
  pulses of hyper existence would be through infinite strings of
  successive states that would all be "life" - and even beyond that -
  "SAS" friendly.

  Hal Ruhl



  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.14/657 - Release Date: 1/29/2007 9:04 AM

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Mon Jan 29 2007 - 16:22:47 PST

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