There are no observers, and no moments

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:42:56 -0000

The problems arise from the concept of 'observer moment' - which implies
that there is an observer (false assumption No.1) and that there is time
(false assumption no.2). If we use the terminology, 'idea' or 'thought' then
the problems vanish.

Nothing is simpler than saying:

1. Everything exists (it's simpler that way, minimal Kolmogorov complexity)
2. This thought therefore exists
3. Weak Anthropic Principle: only 'why do I exist'-type thoughts ask 'why do
I exist', so we should not be suprised, when we ask 'why do I exist' that we
are experiencing a 'why do I exist' type thought - rather than any of the
others that exist in the plenitude.

The rest is technical...

James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alastair Malcolm [SMTP:amalcolm.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2000 11:52 AM
> To: Higgo James; everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Re: Everything is Just a Memory
>
> ----- 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 Mon Jan 31 2000 - 02:46:29 PST