On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> 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)
Measure is gained upon copying, not on branching. That's
basically the difference between the two.
> then one gives up the Cosmological Principle that the Universe looks the same
> from any point (in the Plenitude).
I never heard of that 'principle'. Obviously it's false.
> 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.
I have repeatedly stated that in my approach the measure of a
computation is just the number of implementations of that
computation. That is the simplest possibility.
> 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.
Indeed.
- - - - - - -
Jacques Mallah (jqm1584.domain.name.hidden)
Physicist / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
My URL:
http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/
Received on Wed Feb 02 2000 - 13:53:06 PST