Gentlemen, I have a white rabbit (WR), and it is available for your
inspection right here in Cambridge, in this very universe. This disproves
your theory.
Not to mention your gobbledygook about consciousness - as I have said
repeatedly, you assume a paradoxical universe and then get all worked up
over the paradoxes. Why bother?
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacques M. Mallah [SMTP:jqm1584.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Wednesday, 08 March, 2000 9:42 PM
> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Re: Quantum Time Travel
>
> 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.
>
> Another of your bad definitions. The fact remains the known laws
> 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 Thu Mar 09 2000 - 01:28:14 PST