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

From: Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Tue Jan 25 03:23:21 2000

George Levy wrote:

*>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....
*

I see the point, ok.

*>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.
*

First person measure of TRUE or tautologies have unity valued. Not

first person measure of the event "going to Washington" of course.

So OK.

*>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.
*

Well, that is ambiguous. Here G said nothing, and G* say very high.

But G and G* are 3-person. The 1-person, as you say remains constant.

In some sense and ideally and among machines. The real human first

person will build his first expectations from his favorite religion ...

(I guess).

*>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.
*

Not sure about that. Need to think about. With my pure comp approach

I haven't the universal function at my disposal, except as a powerfully

inspired guide.

*>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.
*

I don't understand.

*>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.
*

Perhaps. I see to much meanings in this statement.

*>The problem is to desigh the experiment to test the theory. :-)
*

Sure ! But first you should formulate sufficiently clearly

the theory for being able to design the experiment :-)

What I'm saying here is that I don't understand your idea of putting

the (relativistic) measure in the observer. In what sense ?

*>How can the concept of relative measure be adapted to Bruno's attempt (comp)
*

*>to explain the laws of Physics from WAP and Turing?
*

Good question ;-)

Bruno

Received on Tue Jan 25 2000 - 03:23:21 PST

Date: Tue Jan 25 03:23:21 2000

George Levy wrote:

I see the point, ok.

First person measure of TRUE or tautologies have unity valued. Not

first person measure of the event "going to Washington" of course.

So OK.

Well, that is ambiguous. Here G said nothing, and G* say very high.

But G and G* are 3-person. The 1-person, as you say remains constant.

In some sense and ideally and among machines. The real human first

person will build his first expectations from his favorite religion ...

(I guess).

Not sure about that. Need to think about. With my pure comp approach

I haven't the universal function at my disposal, except as a powerfully

inspired guide.

I don't understand.

Perhaps. I see to much meanings in this statement.

Sure ! But first you should formulate sufficiently clearly

the theory for being able to design the experiment :-)

What I'm saying here is that I don't understand your idea of putting

the (relativistic) measure in the observer. In what sense ?

Good question ;-)

Bruno

Received on Tue Jan 25 2000 - 03:23:21 PST

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