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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:16:55 -0700 (PDT)

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

*> An observer moment is not devoid of information. The
*

*> mere fact that it is an observer moment, implies
*

*> that the observer can observe itself. Following the
*

*> logic of my Occam paper, one can conclude that
*

*> measure of an observer moment - i.e. _given_ that I
*

*> am an observer is highly non-uniform, with greatest
*

*> measure given for systems indestinguishable from
*

*> lawlike (hence no WRs).
*

Sounds OK.

*> Now with the multiverse, for which there is an
*

*> objective measure uniform measures can exist as
*

*> (rather unnatural) solutions to the
*

*> SE. eg a superposition of all plane waves
*

*> \int_{-\infty}^\infty
*

*> exp(-ipx/\hbar)dp. This beast is clearly
*

*> unnormalisable, but that is not a problem in itself.
*

That's also known as a position eigenstate.

*> However, observers will constrain the form of the
*

*> universal wavefunction such that the measure is
*

*> nonuniform, effectively giving it a value.
*

The above sentence doesn't make sense. First, the

term 'measure' is only defined with respect to

observer-moments. Second, obsevers do not change the

universal wavefunction, though they do for many

practical purposes have to deal only with the relative

state.

*> The more information one has, the more non-uniform
*

*> will be the measure.
*

The objective measure distribution itself remains

the same, but one can define a conditional measure

distribution to reflect the information, useful for

Bayesian purposes. (One can work with the origianl

objective measure and carefully apply Bayesian

analysis.)

*> But it is still the observer selecting a quantum
*

*> history that defines the measure.
*

What's a "quantum history"?

An observer-moment doesn't see a history.

=====

- - - - - - -

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

Received on Wed Apr 26 2000 - 15:23:11 PDT

Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:16:55 -0700 (PDT)

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

Sounds OK.

That's also known as a position eigenstate.

The above sentence doesn't make sense. First, the

term 'measure' is only defined with respect to

observer-moments. Second, obsevers do not change the

universal wavefunction, though they do for many

practical purposes have to deal only with the relative

state.

The objective measure distribution itself remains

the same, but one can define a conditional measure

distribution to reflect the information, useful for

Bayesian purposes. (One can work with the origianl

objective measure and carefully apply Bayesian

analysis.)

What's a "quantum history"?

An observer-moment doesn't see a history.

=====

- - - - - - -

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

Received on Wed Apr 26 2000 - 15:23:11 PDT

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