On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> jqm1584.domain.name.hidden writes:
> > The objective description of a system is not an observer state
> > within that system. Your above definitions don't seem to have any bearing
> > on your claim, either.
>
> It would be a pity to give up now. We are so close. We are now touching the
> issue about the tree that falls in the forest and there is no one to see or
> hear it. Except that now the forest is the plenitude itself.
> The way I understand your concept of "objective reality" is a reality which
> does not necessarily contain any observer to be "real."
An objective reality does not necessarily contain an observer,
and may contain one or more observers.
> Let's proceed by Reductio Ad Absurdum.
If only I had a dime for every time *I've* said that to you guys!
> Let us define an "objective reality"
> as a SUBSET of the Plenitude as seen from a frame of reference which DOES NOT
> CONTAIN ANY OBSERVER.
I'm a bit confused by that definition. I thought you previously
defined "frame of reference" to be an observation. Also, the previous
discussion was based on Everett's MWI of QM, but now you seem to be
invoking the AUH.
I would define "objective reality" to be the set of all things
that exist, period. This may be the plenitude, but only if the AUH is
true. Of course one may consider a subset of reality, and not necessarily
the kind of subset that contains an observer.
> Remember the following very important key fact: the way I define "point of
> view" and "frame of reference" includes the MENTAL states of the observer.
> Therefore, if there was such an objective frame with no observer, such a
You see, your definitions are contradictory. It's like defining
A = not A. Another reason you should stop trying to invent your own
language and start using plain English.
> frame would not include any mental states and therefore would be UNTHOUGHT
> and actually UNTHINKABLE SINCE NO OBSERVER COULD REACH IT! And if an observer
> did reach that frame, then the frame would cease to be objective since it
> would contain the observer.
> Thus any attempt to define such an "objective reality" is misguided and
> pointless. How could such a frame be defined when we cannot even think about
> it? What would be the value of such a point of view since there would be no
> one to see it or even to think about it? What would make this point of view
> special? Why should such an unobserved point of view be more real than an
> observed one?
I should point out that a description of something is valuable for
obvious reasons, as certainly the correct description of reality would be.
> I will grant that the only objective reality is the Plenitude itself with the
> proviso that it is unthinkable. By "unthinkable" I mean that no observer can
> have a mental representation of the plenitude, no matter how smart he is, for
> the simple reason that the plenitude contains him.
Well, obviously no finite observer could have infinite
information. He could, of course, have an algorithm to calculate various
things to arbritrary accuracy. This algorithm would allow him to
approach, though not achieve, the correct "unfolded" description of the
reality.
> Saying that the plenitued
> is the objective reality, however, is not of much value since it contains all
> possibilities. It is like saying that an all white or balck canvas contains
> all the masterpieces of the greatest painters.
Pretty much the idea behind the AUH.
> I repeat what I said before. The only reality that has any meaning and value
> and that makes any sense is a subjective one.
You repeat, all right. Too bad the things you repeat don't make
any sense.
From: Fritz Griffith <fritzgriffith.domain.name.hidden>
> I'm going to jump into the fray and say that I agree with Levy here.
> Perhaps I am more or less repeating what he said, but if you imagine any
> possible universe in the plentitude, you are imagining it from the point
> of view of an observer. It is impossible to imagine a universe outside
> of the observer viewpoint.
If you want to visualize something, obviously you'd imagine it
from a viewpoint. There are other ways of describing something such as a
list of equations, of course.
> Even if you are imagining random, swirling
> colours in empty space, you are still imagining that universe from an
> observer viewpoint.
Colors are a bad example - they are a property of conscious
observations, so could not exist except inside the head of observers. But
that's not really the issue here, so let's replace that with, say,
particles. (Unless instead of empty space, there's a crowd of computers
each seeing a different color.)
> The fact that in reality you cannot survive in
> empty space is irrelivant to the fact that in that universe, you do
> exist in empty space, watching the swirling colours, even if you do not
> exist in physical form.
Hold on there. In that universe, you *don't* exist. If you *did*
exist in that universe, you'd have to supplement the picture with a
picture of yourself in there, much like your current mental picture of the
things in the room where you currently are.
> Because all imaginable possible universes
> include the observer, then to believe in universes that do not include
> an observer would require the assumption that universes exist in the
> plentitude that we can't even imagine.
That's pure BS. Most universes I can imagine don't include
me. In fact, the only universes I can *completely* imagine correctly are
those that don't, by Godel's theorem.
- - - - - - -
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 Mon Feb 28 2000 - 16:15:00 PST