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

From: Russell Standish <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 10:22:10 +1000 (EST)

Naturally, what I've said shouldn't be contraversial. Perhaps the next

statement will. If you've read my Occam paper, you will see that an

absolute measure on the AUH is not required to resolve the White

Rabbit problem. The conditional measure based on some definition of

observer is all that is required. This is just as well, as there

appears to problems with defining an absolute universal prior.

When you write absolute measure, I tend to take this as the measure of

the multiverse, given some initial condition. Given some initial

condition \psi_0, and a Hamiltonian H, the measure of any given

quantum history is well defined. The observer defines the form of H,

and to a slightly lesser extent the initial condition (the Anthropic

Principle). If you were to average over all H's, and all initial

conditions, one must surely end up with a measure distribution devoid

of information, and probably something like the uniform distribution

(although I haven't worked through the maths to see if this is

actually what happens, or even if the procedure is possible).

Cheers

*>
*

*> --- Russell Standish <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
*

*> > In order to obtain any measure distribution that
*

*> > differs from the uniform one (ie contains
*

*> > information), one must have a selection from
*

*> > the plenitude (or the multiverse if we're talking
*

*> > about that situation). This selection is made by the
*

*> > observer, and can be different for different
*

*> > observers.
*

*>
*

*> I wouldn't call the measure distribution "uniform"
*

*> even for the AUH, just as the TM universal string
*

*> distribution (outputs of a random program; it's not
*

*> computable) is not the same as the uniform
*

*> distribution (random bitstring). The measure
*

*> distribution for the AUH is quite nontrivial even if
*

*> (in principle) it contains no information.
*

*> That said it just sounds like you're talking about
*

*> a conditional effective probability, conditional on
*

*> some definition of "the observer". So I can't argue
*

*> with that because you haven't said anything
*

*> controversial above :(
*

*>
*

*> =====
*

*> - - - - - - -
*

*> 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!?
*

*> Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
*

*> http://invites.yahoo.com
*

*>
*

*>
*

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

Dr. Russell Standish Director

High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967

UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965

Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden

Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks

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

Received on Tue Apr 18 2000 - 17:18:30 PDT

Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 10:22:10 +1000 (EST)

Naturally, what I've said shouldn't be contraversial. Perhaps the next

statement will. If you've read my Occam paper, you will see that an

absolute measure on the AUH is not required to resolve the White

Rabbit problem. The conditional measure based on some definition of

observer is all that is required. This is just as well, as there

appears to problems with defining an absolute universal prior.

When you write absolute measure, I tend to take this as the measure of

the multiverse, given some initial condition. Given some initial

condition \psi_0, and a Hamiltonian H, the measure of any given

quantum history is well defined. The observer defines the form of H,

and to a slightly lesser extent the initial condition (the Anthropic

Principle). If you were to average over all H's, and all initial

conditions, one must surely end up with a measure distribution devoid

of information, and probably something like the uniform distribution

(although I haven't worked through the maths to see if this is

actually what happens, or even if the procedure is possible).

Cheers

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

Dr. Russell Standish Director

High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967

UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965

Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden

Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks

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

Received on Tue Apr 18 2000 - 17:18:30 PDT

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