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

From: Jacques Mallah <jackmallah.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:35:49 -0800 (PST)

GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:

jackmallah.domain.name.hidden writes:

*> Renormalizing, one must choose > arbritrarily
*

*> a reference unit Y; then the absolute measure of X can be stated as
*

*> M(X)/M(Y).
*

OK. Both of us take a ratio. At least we have this in common.

Normalized Measure = M(X)/M(Y).

The difference between us is that:

1) I constrain M(Y) to be the absolute measure of the observer himself such

that the normalized measure of the observer (as observed by him) is precisely

one. All his other observations are similarly normalized according to his own

measure.

2) You believe that M(Y) can be (more or less) arbitrarily chosen.

OK. The advantages of my approach are

1) It does not require any special definition of identity, while your approach seems to give one a fundamental role.

2) In principle, it allows all kinds of (statistical) retrodictions. Your approach seems to only allow a few kinds.

3) It is unclear how you deal with time based on your previous and current statements. In my approach it is clear that each observer-moment has some measure, and a set of related observer moments can be used for a 'person' if desired, so that the person's total measure is the sum of that of his constituent observer-moments. This clearly rules out QTI.

4) In the MWI of QM the measure of an observer in a 'branch' is defined. This is proportional to dM(total)/dtau (tau ~ clock speed) in my approach. In your approach it must be divided by an identity-dependent factor resulting in possible near-zombies.

- - - - - - -

Jacques Mallah (jackmallah.domain.name.hidden)

Physicist / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate

"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum

My URL: http://hammer.prohosting.com/~mathmind/

---------------------------------

Do You Yahoo!?

Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.

Received on Mon Mar 27 2000 - 12:12:21 PST

Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:35:49 -0800 (PST)

GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:

jackmallah.domain.name.hidden writes:

OK. Both of us take a ratio. At least we have this in common.

Normalized Measure = M(X)/M(Y).

The difference between us is that:

1) I constrain M(Y) to be the absolute measure of the observer himself such

that the normalized measure of the observer (as observed by him) is precisely

one. All his other observations are similarly normalized according to his own

measure.

2) You believe that M(Y) can be (more or less) arbitrarily chosen.

OK. The advantages of my approach are

1) It does not require any special definition of identity, while your approach seems to give one a fundamental role.

2) In principle, it allows all kinds of (statistical) retrodictions. Your approach seems to only allow a few kinds.

3) It is unclear how you deal with time based on your previous and current statements. In my approach it is clear that each observer-moment has some measure, and a set of related observer moments can be used for a 'person' if desired, so that the person's total measure is the sum of that of his constituent observer-moments. This clearly rules out QTI.

4) In the MWI of QM the measure of an observer in a 'branch' is defined. This is proportional to dM(total)/dtau (tau ~ clock speed) in my approach. In your approach it must be divided by an identity-dependent factor resulting in possible near-zombies.

- - - - - - -

Jacques Mallah (jackmallah.domain.name.hidden)

Physicist / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate

"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum

My URL: http://hammer.prohosting.com/~mathmind/

---------------------------------

Do You Yahoo!?

Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.

Received on Mon Mar 27 2000 - 12:12:21 PST

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