Of course, we all live in the same universe in the sense that we are
all simulated by brains that exist in this universe (described
approximately by the Standard Model and General Relativity). The
problem is how to define the observer moments rigorously at least in
principle. It is undeniable that we experience a the world that our
brains are simulating and not the real world. We experience the real
world only indirectly.
If you touch a hot object and burn your finger then you experiencing
the pain is really an event that happens in the virtual world simulated
by your brain. Your brain simply uses the results of the simulation to
compute what action to take in the real world (and the simulation will
then be updated accordingly). The burning sensation exists only in the
simulated world, not in the real world. Of course, you can infer that
the object must have been hot.
So, it seems to be more sensible to me to say that an observer moment
is itself an entire universe (= program) in some state. This looks
equivalent to specifying the exact state a brain is in, but the brain
contains more information than is accessible to the observer. We really
have to extract the program the brain is running from the brain and use
that to define OMs, otherwise an OM becomes an inherently ambiguous
concept (e.g. where does the brain end, do the nerves in my feet also
count? etc. etc.).
One can simply define an observer as some program and look at the
entire multiverse to seek out these programs that are in such and such
state. Then one adds up all the absolute measures to obtain the total
probability that the program is experiencing that state.
One would then expect that it is likely that a program defining a human
observer is simulated by a brain in a universe described by the
Standard Model.
citeren Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>:
>
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
>> 1) looks better because there is no unambiguous definition of "next".
>> However, I don't understand the "shared by everyone" part. Different
>> persons are different programs who cannot exactly represent the
>> "observer moment" of me.
>>
>> As I see it, an observer moment is a snapshot of the universe taken by
>> my brain. The brain simulates a virtual world based on information from
>> the real world. We don't really experience the real world, we just
>> experience this simulated world. Observer moments for observers should
>> refer to the physical states of the virtual world they live in. Since
>> different observers live in different universes which have different
>> laws of physics, these physical states (= qualia) cannot be compared to
>> each other.
>
> How do you know they live in different universes? The great
> agreement among observers is what leads us to believe in an objective
> world. It appears that it is more economical (both ontologically and
> algorithmically) to explain the agreement by supposing there is an
> objective world as described by physics. In which case the observer
> moments are derivative from the objective world - that's what makes
> it a more efficient hypothesis.
>
> Brent Meeker
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Fri Oct 05 2007 - 14:30:18 PDT