RE: Everything is Just a Memory

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 13:41:07 -0000

What a tangled train of thought! All we know is this idea. It exists. And if
everything exists, that explains it. End of story.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alastair Malcolm [SMTP:amalcolm.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 12:33 PM
> To: Fritz Griffith; everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Re: Everything is Just a Memory
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Fritz Griffith <fritzgriffith.domain.name.hidden>
> > > > As I said, the measure problems are the same whether you use MW or
> my
> > > > single observer moment theory.
> > >
> > >If by 'measure problem' it is meant that the WAP on its own predicts
> 'chaos
> > >to the brink' (because our measure should be highest for chaotic
> universes
> > > - the WR problem), then the measure problem is potentially solvable
> for
> AUH
> > >(All universes hypotheses), but not for your single observer moment
> theory
> > >(without an additional assumption, as mentioned in my earlier post).
> The
> > >underlying reason for this is that any minimum information
> specification
> > >that includes our universe (say a physicist's TOE) can be considered as
> > >simpler than a (near) *explicit* specification of a single observer
> moment,
> > >with all the attendent complication of a mechanism that can support any
> > >possible human memory (not to mention thought, emotion, creativity and
> > >so on). Again, see my web site or Russell's Ockham paper for more
> details.
>
> > But as I've already mentioned before, there is not just one explicit
> > observer moment. You seem to assume that I take a Copenhagen-style
> approach
> > to my theory, but in reality I take a more MW approach. I believe that
> > all possible observer moments exist in the plentitude, and therefore the
> > equation that describes them could be just as simple, even the same, as
> > those that could describe the universe with an AUH theory.
>
> I was always assuming that you were referring to a plenitude, I was just
> trying to keep things simple by mentioning only one. A plenitude of *only*
> observer moments would have much the same problems as I mentioned for one,
> with some compression available for the whole range of possible SAS (say
> conscious) memories. More likely, I would guess, is that you are thinking
> in
> terms of a plenitude *including* all possible observer moments. If the
> equation describing this plenitude is the same as an AUH theory, I can't
> see
> how your single observer moment theory differs from ordinary physics
> (extended as necessary to encompass other universes). If the equation is
> different (the extra assumption I have referred to earlier), then not only
> would some justification be needed for why a different physics generates
> the
> illusion of memories of our physics in action, but also how this new
> physics
> could be simpler than conventional TOE physics, bearing in mind it has to
> support (at least) observer moments, with all their complexity.
>
> Alastair
>
>
Received on Wed Jan 26 2000 - 05:41:01 PST