Re: Quantum Time Travel

From: <GSLevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:50:57 EST

In a message dated 2/28/00 4:15:04 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jqm1584.domain.name.hidden writes:


> 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.


If an objective reality did contain observers, then it would be a subjective
reality for those 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.

A frame of reference is more general than observer because it includes the
observer's mental state and the anthropically necessary environment.


> 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.

If according to you, objective reality implies existence and existence
implies objective reality then this definition is circular.

> 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.

I have not closely followed the discussion regarding the differences between
Everett's MWI, Schmidthuber MW, AUH (All Universe Hypothesis?) and the
Plenitude. However, in the absence of reason for selecting a MW of any
particular size, I consider the Plenitude to be the largest possible MW, one
that include all imaginable and unimaginable possibilities. I am not sure how
this fits with the other schools of thoughts. I assume it is the same as the
AUH.



> > 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.

I agree. This is precisely what I am trying to prove, a contradiction.

Another reason you should stop trying to invent your own
> language and start using plain English.

I defy an English teacher to make sense of our posts (AUH, MWI, RSSA, ASSA,
and so on)

>
> > 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.

So apparently we agree on one thing: that the only objective reality is the
Plenitude or possibly the AUH.
This reality however has zero information content and, therefore, is not much
of a reality. The everyday "so-called objective reality" that we experience
is very different from the full Plenitude reality. My point is that our
reality is anthropically filtered from the Plenitude by our own very
existence and our very thought process.

> > I repeat what I said before. The only reality that has any meaning and
> value
> > and that makes any sense is a subjective one.

 RStandish writes:
> I think I side with Jacques on this. The objective description is the
> MWI itself - Schroedinger's equation, the Hilbert space in which it
> lives etc. The individual classical universes projected out by the
> conscious entities are subjective.

We are not that far from each other. As I said, if you make the MWI large
enough it loses all information. The only meaningful worlds are then the
subjective ones.

George Levy
Received on Tue Feb 29 2000 - 14:00:26 PST