On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> jqm1584.domain.name.hidden writes:
> > 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.
No, not it. I'd define a subjective reality as an observation
itself. An observer would not be aware of the entire objective reality.
> > > 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.
Well, that doesn't make the above any clearer.
> > 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.
I don't know why you say that but my definition is as above. It's
not a question of implying. 'Real' is synonymous with 'existing', and the
qualifier 'objective' indicates that this set is not observer-dependent.
> > 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.
Yes. Everett = there's a wavefunction; not really a many worlds
interpretation in the strongest sense. Schmiddy = all Turing machine
programs running. AUH = all (possible) universes hypothesis.
> > > 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.
You're not proving anything except that you are bad at
definitions. If *I* defined things the way you want to, then of course it
would be different. But your definitions have little to do with my views
on objective reality. My own definition is above.
> 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)
There are some technical terms we've defined, and use acronyms
for, but your definitions are not helpful and not clear.
> > > 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.
I think it's not unlikely, but I wouldn't say for sure that the
AUH is true.
> 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.
No one ever said we experience the objective reality! I certainly
didn't. Of course we can try to guess what it is, and the AUH is one such
attempt. What we (depending as usual on the definition of that term)
experience is an observer-moment, effectively drawn at random from the
overall measure distribution. Now, the measure distribution is of course
part of objective reality.
- - - - - - -
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 Tue Feb 29 2000 - 18:23:49 PST