Re: Everything is Just a Memory

From: Alastair Malcolm <amalcolm.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 11:52:10 -0000

----- Original Message -----
From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
> What a tangled train of thought! All we know is this idea. It exists. And
if
> everything exists, that explains it. End of story.

My last post was very simple, in essence: it just gave three possible
scenarios for Fritz's hypothesis and pointed to either severe problems,
or else indistinguishabilty from straightforward physics, for each of the
three. As far as I can see, your ideas suffer from the same potential
problems.

Alastair

>
> > -----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 Sat Jan 29 2000 - 04:13:43 PST