# Re: Quantum Time Travel

From: Jacques M. Mallah <jqm1584.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:42:24 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> jqm1584.domain.name.hidden writes:
> > 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.

of physics make the world predictable, not completely perhaps, but enough
that it can certainly be distinguished from lawlessness.

> > 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 not such an easy question, but all approaches must deal
with it eventually. F'rinstance, if you believe your measure will be
split if you have 2 conscious continuations, and not if there's just one.
But actually in my case a conditional 'probability' distribution
is fine, so for example if one could identify all human-like conscious
computations, one could ask for the conditional effective probability
distribution within that set. Choose any set of computations you want,
really, but be careful to note the meaning of the chosen denominator. It
will still be an objective, well defined feature of reality.
Remember, too, that with a finite regularization in place the
measures in question are finite integers. For decision making and so on,
it's fine to work with a regularization, get the answer as a function of
that, and then take the limit.

> 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

That's pure, unadulterated bovine coprophilia. Only an effective
probability distribution allows us to make useful deductions.

- - - - - - -
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 Wed Mar 08 2000 - 13:56:49 PST

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