Re: Everything is Just a Memory

From: Jacques M. Mallah <>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 16:41:48 -0500 (EST)

On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 wrote:
> 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.


                         - - - - - - -
               Jacques Mallah (
         Physicist / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
             My URL:
Received on Wed Feb 02 2000 - 13:53:06 PST

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