In a message dated 03/03/2000 2:45:12 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jqm1584.domain.name.hidden writes:
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> > jqm1584.domain.name.hidden writes:
> > > > 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.
>
> Why do you say WRs cancel out? I disagree completely.
The white rabbits I was referring to are quantum events such as elementary
particles popping out of the vacuum for very short time intervals. In theory,
even Napoleon or Elvis Presley could be considered to pop out if we make the
existence time interval short enough.
>
> > > 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?
>
> Obviously, you need some general way to take the limit. In the TM
> program ensemble, it's easy because one can consider strings of length N
> (2^N being finite) and let N go to infinity. I'd say that's the most
> sensible way.
> In the quantum wavefunction case, where I am comparing numbers of
> implementations, the best way seems to be discreting the system in some
> natural coordinate system and taking the limit as the step size goes to
> zero. (This being in wavefunction space, not 3-space or even 3N-space.)
When you take the limit as your step size goes to zero, the measure of all
objects in your environment goes to infinity. So, to make comparisons you
must take the ratio of the measure of two objects. That's fine, if you make
third person comparisons. You could always select the measure of your shoe as
the denominator. But what's so unique about your shoe? Can you find something
more universal? Trying to use a number like N is meaningless because in the
real non-TM world N would be equivalent to the size of the Plenitude. I
suppose dividing any measure by such a large N would reduce all normalized
measure to zero.
> > >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.
>
> That's total stupidity and bullshit. There is not even an
> absolute definition of "you" so it's not even well defined. And what's
> needed is an overall measure distribution of observer moments, which that
> method could never provide thus giving NO predictions and having NO value.
>
C'mon Jacques, you make me blush with the BS talk.
True, the ABSOLUTE definition of "you" from a third person perspective is not
obvious. You could draw the boundary between "you" and the rest of the world
in many places. Your choice of coordinate is arbitrary. And this is
precisely the problem if you select the non-relativistic, absolute route.
However, the relativistic approach provides a crystal clear value for the
measure of self. It is simply and always unity.
> > 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.
>
> There is no such thing. The measure distribution of observer
> moments is all that matters. If absolute measure is lost, that's
> effectively a chance for death.
The problem with this approach is that, in the immensity of the plenitude,
there is no non-arbitrary peg we can use (as a unit, or as a denominator in
the renormalization process) in producing an absolute value for measure. For
if there was such a peg, then the Plenitude itself would be arbitrary which
would imply the existence of other Plenitudes with different pegs.
This is the reason why I believe in the relativistic approach that the only
reference we can use is our own measure.
George Levy
>
Received on Sat Mar 04 2000 - 12:23:41 PST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST