Re: Everything is Just a Memory

From: Marchal <>
Date: Thu Jan 27 03:07:53 2000

Alastair Malcolm wrote:

>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).

In what follows SE = Schrodinger Equation.

Malcolm : plenitude = Everett worlds (SE granted)
Griffith : plenitude = observer moments (1 or many ?) (SE granted ?)
Higgo : plenitude = everything = every ideas (SE granted ?)

Don't hesitate to correct me.

Me : 3-plenitude is Arithmetical Truth (SE not granted, but AT
                      computer sciences)
     1-plenitude is Undefinable (too big!), but with comp SE is
                      Everett worlds are 1-observable by the machines who
                      look below their level of substitution. (The Galouye

>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.


Note that I provide not only justifications, but I suggest how and
why machines are leaded toward such justifications (one part deduced, one
part infered).

But it is not a different physics, it is number theory including computer
science and universal machine psychology
(or biology, or theology, I am not difficult with words).

Ontologicaly it is monistic realist rational idealism.
And it *follows* from comp. (comp -> "Me", but the reverse could be
wrong, "Me" could still be correct with a weakening of comp).

Received on Thu Jan 27 2000 - 03:07:53 PST

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