- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: <GSLevy.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 16:48:46 EST

In a message dated 03/02/2000 11:16:47 AM Pacific Standard Time,

jqm1584.domain.name.hidden writes:

*> On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:
*

*> > 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.
*

*>
*

*> That's one of the first topics I discussed on this list. My
*

*> answer now is the same as it was then. First, we know that some
*

*> observations do have more measure than others, because if not we'd see
*

*> only 'white rabbits'.
*

I kind of agree with you that some macroscopic observations are more probable

than others but only because the microscopic "white rabbits" tend to cancel

out. (In fact, if it wasn't for the microscopic white rabbits, there wouldn't

be any world - white rabbits make the world go round :-) ) So, I agree

that, from the first person point of view, the probabilistic measure could

be higher for some macroscopic event or object than for others.

*> Second, in physics we deal with ratios of infinite
*

*> quantities all the time. The key is to use a limiting process in the
*

*> definition. One can renormalize the measure distribution to make it into
*

*> an effective probability distribution. If you like you can take the
*

*> latter to be the fundamental quantity, but it's easier to work with
*

*> measure so we don't have to worry about the normalization.
*

*>
*

Precisely. In physics we use ratios of infinite quantities because we cannot

deal with the infinite quantities themselves. Same thing should apply to

measure. Let's say that the measure of a particular object, say the computer

in front of you, is infinite. How would you renormalize it? Well, you'll have

to take a ratio. Divide the measure of the computer by something. By what?

*>From an observer point of view, the only thing that makes sense is to divide
*

the measure of your computer by your own measure - rather than by the measure

of your shoes or your girlfriend. Using your own measure as the common

denominator for calculating the renormalized measures of all objects around

you, will keep your observations consistent and relativistic. Furthermore,

using this approach, the renormalized value of your own measure is always

unity -- which implies quantum immortality.

In the absolute sense, it may very well be that measure is lost and gained.

However, from the first person relativistic point of view, measure of self is

always conserved, and the first person point of view is all that matters.

George Levy

Received on Fri Mar 03 2000 - 13:55:47 PST

Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 16:48:46 EST

In a message dated 03/02/2000 11:16:47 AM Pacific Standard Time,

jqm1584.domain.name.hidden writes:

course

itself

measure.

I kind of agree with you that some macroscopic observations are more probable

than others but only because the microscopic "white rabbits" tend to cancel

out. (In fact, if it wasn't for the microscopic white rabbits, there wouldn't

be any world - white rabbits make the world go round :-) ) So, I agree

that, from the first person point of view, the probabilistic measure could

be higher for some macroscopic event or object than for others.

Precisely. In physics we use ratios of infinite quantities because we cannot

deal with the infinite quantities themselves. Same thing should apply to

measure. Let's say that the measure of a particular object, say the computer

in front of you, is infinite. How would you renormalize it? Well, you'll have

to take a ratio. Divide the measure of the computer by something. By what?

the measure of your computer by your own measure - rather than by the measure

of your shoes or your girlfriend. Using your own measure as the common

denominator for calculating the renormalized measures of all objects around

you, will keep your observations consistent and relativistic. Furthermore,

using this approach, the renormalized value of your own measure is always

unity -- which implies quantum immortality.

In the absolute sense, it may very well be that measure is lost and gained.

However, from the first person relativistic point of view, measure of self is

always conserved, and the first person point of view is all that matters.

George Levy

Received on Fri Mar 03 2000 - 13:55:47 PST

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