Re: Quantum Time Travel

From: <GSLevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 14:32:25 EST

In a message dated 03/05/2000 1:22:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jqm1584.domain.name.hidden writes:

> On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> > even Napoleon or Elvis Presley could be considered to pop out if we make
> > the existence time interval short enough.
>
> I'm surprised to see a MWIer say such a thing. The vacuum is an
> energy eigenstate, therefore a stationary state. There is no time
> evolution in it. It's not orthogonal to states with (pre-renormalized)
> "particles", hence the rather misleading popularization that particles
> "pop in and out". It's like saying that a spin pointing in the +X
> direction is "flipping back and forth" in the Z direction.

> A WR, on the other hand, by definition is an anomoly that requires
> additional complexity in the laws of physics in order to explain it. The
> non-orthogonality of the vacuum to the above mentioned states is clearly
> not in that category.


I do not make any difference between quantum effects and white rabbits. At
the level of the Plenitude, there are no laws. All is permitted including
white rabbits. Quantum effects give us a small glimpse of the Plenitude.



> > 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?
>
> Since we're looking for the effective probability distribution,
> the best denominator would be the sum of the measures of all conscious
> computations.

Now this is really getting muddy! How do you define conscious? With the same
algorithm used to compute the number of angels on the head of a pin?


> > > That's total stupidity and bullshit.
> >
> > C'mon Jacques, you make me blush with the BS talk.
>
> Sorry. Perhaps you could suggest a more family-friendly
> alternative derogation.

Yes! Bovine coprophilia!

> > However, the relativistic approach provides a crystal clear value for
the
> > measure of self. It is simply and always unity.
 
> What is? If you can't even draw the boundary, the measure of
> *any* thing would become unity.

True. The absolute measure of anything becomes meaningless. However, the
relative measure between two objects, or between the self and some other
object is meaningful. So renormalization should always be done in relation to
the self, where the measure of self is taken as unity


George Levy
Received on Mon Mar 06 2000 - 11:38:51 PST