Re: Everything is Just a Memory

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