Re: Joining Post

From: Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:05:20 -0800

Gevin Giorbran wrote:
> On Jan 3, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> Is hurting or make the puppet suffer morally correct with your position ?
>> If it is not, then this is strange since they are only puppets and you
>> *are*...(means you can't hurt them because they aren't) This is simply
>> sollipsism and (un)fortunately completely circular.
>>
>> Also as you acknowledge other "pilots" existence in "other" universe, how is
>> this different than acknowledging simply the existence of other people ?
>>
>
> Günther Greindl wrote:
>
>> This is the question of why _I_ experience the world as I do and not the
>> other worlds.
>>
>
>
> This is not the identity crisis question of why am I not that person
> over there, nor is it circular, or solipsism (although if true it
> could lead to a philosophy of solipsism).
>
> This is basic quantum theory applied to the macro-world. Ever since
> Schrödinger disapprovingly amplified the uncertainty of atomic decay
> and showed that quantum uncertainty extends to the macro-world, this
> issue has been apparent. I am certain this "observer over observed"
> issue has been discussed before. Someone has mentioned that John
> Wheeler described this, describing a "free floating" observer that
> dictates reality all the way back to the big bang. He just didn't
> discuss the issue of pilots and puppets.
>
> In the instant I observe the contents of the box the uncertainty
> collapses,

Actually it collapses before, see quant-ph/0402146 v1. It is shown that
in a Young's slit experiment with C70 buckyballs, the interference
fringes disappear when the buckyballs are sufficiently heated to radiate
some IR photons. No observer is needed, only the interaction with the
environment.

> however, the colleague who walks in the room one second
> later in pilot form is not subject to my observation, for them the
> outcome of the event is still uncertain until they open the lab door
> and look in, at which point they branch into two futures defined by
> different pasts, me in tears (I love cats) or the cat alive and me
> happy. Their observation of me (tears or jeers) will correspond to
> their observation of the cat. HOWEVER, the colleague I observe (their
> observation) is predetermined (made measurably deterministic) by my
> earlier observation. Their observation will correspond to my
> observation, in a sense making them a puppet of the universe I
> observe.
>

"Puppet" implies you are pulling the strings. So can you bend the
universe to your will?

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 Thu Jan 17 2008 - 12:05:57 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:14 PST