Re: Everything is Just a Memory

From: <GSLevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 23:44:48 EST

In a message dated 01/21/2000 9:46:21 AM Pacific Standard Time,
marchal.domain.name.hidden writes:

> And as I said, without measure-like concept, without structure on the
> set of observer-moments, I don't see any ways to derive physics.

The concept of measure is tricky. If one insists on an absolute value for
measure, (such that measure is lost upon death and gained upon branching)
then one gives up the Cosmological Principle that the Universe looks the same
from any point (in the Plenitude). In addition, one must come up with a value
for that measure, for example 75690339. Furthermore, one must find a rational
 for this particular value which defeats the nice acausal symmetry provided
by the concept of the plenitude. (Laws without laws by Wheeler? I don't know
if my quote is correct). This, I guess, is the approach that Jacques is
taking.

On the other hand, if one accepts a relativistic measure, that is if we
renormalize the measure at everypoint along the branching process, it almost
makes a mockery of the whole concept of measure.

Almost the same words could have been said about motion before Galileo and
also before Einstein..... If motion is absolute then what is the velocity of
the Earth? And if it is relative, then any motion measured.... from its own
frame of reference.... is always zero....

This brings us to the concept of 1st person and 3rd person measure. We could
view measure in the same way as motion. First person measure is always the
same. We could define this value to be unity. Third person measure would then
be different. Very low for someone when we observe this someone near death,
very high for someone if we - the observers - are ourselves near death.

This has all sort of implications in Quantum theory. One implication is that
the wave function appears different dependent on the 3rd person probability
of continuing living.

One more thing. There is really no such a thing as a single third person with
a unique measure and a unique probability of continued life. Each "third
person" observer carries with him his own measure and his own probability of
continued life.
Therefore, I think that the "third person" should be replaced by the more
general relativistic concept according to which each observer has his own
(relativistic) measure and (relativistic) probability of continued life.

The problem is to desigh the experiment to test the theory. :-)
 
> Comp entails some natural measure on the set of observer-moments, why
> not use them?

How can the concept of relative measure be adapted to Bruno's attempt (comp)
to explain the laws of Physics from WAP and Turing?

George Levy
Received on Sun Jan 23 2000 - 20:49:34 PST