Re: Quantum Time Travel

From: <GSLevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 01:35:25 EST

In a message dated 03/01/2000 9:20:15 PM Pacific Standard Time,
R.Standish.domain.name.hidden writes:

>
> Yes, except the Multiverse (MWI as you call it) is not devoid of
> information. The Plenitude is. There are (hopefully) good reasons why
> conscious entities must live in the Multiverse, therefore the
> Multiverse itself is an objective reality. The individual quantum
> histories (ie classical universes that we know and love) within the
> multiverse are subjective.

OK. I should have used MW.

The Plenitude represents the absolute infinite. The justification for this
concept is that in the absence of reason for restricting its size, then its
size blows up beyond any possible description. Its size is absolute infinity
and, conversely, its information content absolutely zero.

There are several problems with making a distinction between the MW and the
Plenitude:
1) A reason is needed to assign information content to the MW. Do you have
such reason?
2) Assigning information content to the MW implies the existence of other MWs
in the Plenitude with different information contents! This obviously defeats
the whole purpose of the MW.

It may very well be possible that the world is built like an onion, with
layers appearing as we probe toward the infinitely small as well as toward
the infinitely big. So it may be that we are in one of several "MWs" , but,
in this case the concept of MW is diluted. If we choose that route, then MWs
become just as banal as galaxies or solar systems, and must be treated as
anthropically shaped entities with, as you say, information content to
support life and consciousness, and therefore, belonging to a subjective
reality. However, the issue of the Plenitude cannot simply be eliminated.

The Plenitude remains the only objective reality. Any other perception of
reality is emergent, anthropically generated and subjective.

Jacques Mallah said
> 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.


We go back now to the measure problem. We kind of agreed that the AUH or
plenitude is objective leaving our perception of the world as subjective
experiences. If the AUH is truly and absolutely infinite, measure itself
could be infinite. I do not understand how you can be so confident in talking
about assigning firm values to measure, gaining measure and losing measure.
Infinity x2 = infinity, infinity/2 = infinity.

George Levy
Received on Wed Mar 01 2000 - 22:39:17 PST