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

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

Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 12:10:11 +1000 (EST)

Jacques Mallah wrote:

*>
*

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

*> > > You're playing with words. The point is a
*

*> > > measure distribution must be measure *of
*

*> > > something*. Thus it makes no sense to speak
*

*> > > of "the measure distribution"
*

*> > > given a wavefunction, unless you state what it is
*

*> > > measure *of*. The only measure distribution we
*

*> > > have been dealing with in that context is of
*

*> > > observer-moments. I call that M(c)
*

*>
*

*> > Not at all true. A lot of discussion has taken place
*

*> > in this list re
*

*> > measure of strings in a Schmidhuber plenitude.
*

*>
*

*> Which is not in "that context", of a wavefunction.
*

*>
*

*> > Measure is always taken to be the strength or
*

*> > density of a particular object from within an
*

*> > ensemble (continuous or otherwise) of
*

*> > objects. It is readily related to a sampling
*

*> > probability when the
*

*> > measure distribution is normalisable.
*

*> >
*

*> > Schroedinger's equation gives a measure distribution
*

*> > for outcomes of particular observables, given
*

*> > certain constraints (a Hamiltonian and a
*

*> > boundary condition).
*

*> > An observer moment must be the conjunction of
*

*> > some vast array of observables having particular
*

*> > values.
*

*>
*

*> Really? Are you saying that the Sh. eq. gives a
*

*> measure distribution for "outcomes" of "observables"
*

*> even when there are no obserrver-moments? What is
*

*> that supposed to mean?
*

Of course. Anyone can construct a system with no observers in it. eg a

cubic metre of Titan's ocean. That system will have observables eg

temperature, density etc, but presumably no observers (until we send a

space probe), and hence no observer moments. The SE is well defined

given our state of knowledge of Titan's surface, and one can compute a

measure distribution of observable outcomes if an observer were to be

present.

*> If by "observables" you mean Hermitian operators,
*

*> how does the Sh. eq. do the above?
*

If A is your observable, x is the state your system is in, and y

indexes the set of outcomes, the distribution <y|A|x> is the measure

distribution of outcomes fro that observable. Surely, you know this already.

*> My view, as I have stated repeatedly, is that it
*

*> should be possible to derive a measure distribution
*

*> for computations implemented by a physical system and
*

*> that given a wavefunction & the Sh. eq., it should be
*

*> possible to show that the ratios of the measures of
*

*> appropriate computations that could be conscious (if
*

*> present, e.g if there is a brain in the system) to the
*

*> total measure of such are the usual effective
*

*> probabilities.
*

I guess we differ here. I don't believe a computation can ever be

conscious. Rather I believe the converse - a consciousness can always

implement a computation.

*>
*

*> > My own preference is to talk about a quantum
*

*> > history, which under some
*

*> > (perhaps rather flaky) assumptions, could be
*

*> > identified with the concept of observer moment.
*

*>
*

*> What's a "quantum history"? Any relation to the
*

*> "consistent histories interpretation"?
*

Perhaps, although I'm not familiar with this term.

*>
*

*>
*

*> =====
*

*> - - - - - - -
*

*> 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 and get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
*

*> http://im.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 Sun Apr 30 2000 - 19:08:41 PDT

Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 12:10:11 +1000 (EST)

Jacques Mallah wrote:

Of course. Anyone can construct a system with no observers in it. eg a

cubic metre of Titan's ocean. That system will have observables eg

temperature, density etc, but presumably no observers (until we send a

space probe), and hence no observer moments. The SE is well defined

given our state of knowledge of Titan's surface, and one can compute a

measure distribution of observable outcomes if an observer were to be

present.

If A is your observable, x is the state your system is in, and y

indexes the set of outcomes, the distribution <y|A|x> is the measure

distribution of outcomes fro that observable. Surely, you know this already.

I guess we differ here. I don't believe a computation can ever be

conscious. Rather I believe the converse - a consciousness can always

implement a computation.

Perhaps, although I'm not familiar with this term.

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

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 Sun Apr 30 2000 - 19:08:41 PDT

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