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

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

Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 18:27:33 -0700 (PDT)

--- Alastair Malcolm wrote:

*> Note James is also saying that there is no such
*

*> thing as an objective 'you' (other than bare
*

*> instantaneous thought content). This part of the
*

*> hypothesis, at least, has severe problems (see my
*

*> email of 1st Feb or thereabouts).
*

Since I have maintained that the best definition

of 'you' is your observer-moment, I'll respond to

this. You appear, above, to be claiming that it is

necessary to believe that there is a "you" extended

over time, and that your post showed that. Let's have

a look at this legendary post. (It is quoted in full

below.)

It is clear that what you really claimed is that

believing that "you" are just an observer-moment, is

the same as ordinary (AUH) physics. Perhaps Fritz'

proposal made some other claim, but clearly you did

not show any problem with the observer-moment

*definition* of "you".

In fact, it seems to me that any claim that an

extended definition of "you" is needed would require

new physics (mind-like hidden variables). (The only

reasonable extended definition I see is merely the

option to label an extended implementation of a

computation as "you". Recall that a particular

implementation has a finite time duration though even

if the overall measure (~# of implementations) decays

with a tail.)

"Re: Everything is Just a Memory

From: Alastair Malcolm

Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 04:52:07

From: Fritz Griffith <fritzgriffith.domain.name.hidden>

*> > > As I said, the measure problems are the same
*

whether you use MW or my

*> > > single observer moment theory.
*

*> >
*

*> >If by 'measure problem' it is meant that the WAP on
*

its own predicts 'chaos

*> >to the brink' (because our measure should be
*

highest for chaotic universes

*> > - the WR problem), then the measure problem is
*

potentially solvable for AUH

*> >(All universes hypotheses), but not for your single
*

observer moment theory

*> >(without an additional assumption, as mentioned in
*

my earlier post). The

*> >underlying reason for this is that any minimum
*

information specification

*> >that includes our universe (say a physicist's TOE)
*

can be considered as

*> >simpler than a (near) *explicit* specification of a
*

single observer moment,

*> >with all the attendent complication of a mechanism
*

that can support any

*> >possible human memory (not to mention thought,
*

emotion, creativity and

*> >so on). Again, see my web site or Russell's Ockham
*

paper for more details.

*> But as I've already mentioned before, there is not
*

just one explicit

*> observer moment. You seem to assume that I take a
*

Copenhagen-style approach

*> to my theory, but in reality I take a more MW
*

approach. I believe that

*> all possible observer moments exist in the
*

plentitude, and therefore the

*> equation that describes them could be just as
*

simple, even the same, as

*> those that could describe the universe with an AUH
*

theory.

I was always assuming that you were referring to a

plenitude, I was just trying to keep things simple by

mentioning only one. A plenitude of *only* observer

moments would have much the same problems as I

mentioned for one, with some compression available for

the whole range of possible SAS (say conscious)

memories. More likely, I would guess, is that you are

thinking in terms of a plenitude *including* all

possible observer moments. If the equation describing

this plenitude is the same as an AUH theory, I can't

see how your single observer moment theory differs

from ordinary physics (extended as necessary to

encompass other universes). If the equation is

different (the extra assumption I have referred to

earlier), then not only would some justification be

needed for why a different physics generates the

illusion of memories of our physics in action, but

also how this new physics could be simpler than

conventional TOE physics, bearing in mind it has to

support (at least) observer moments, with all their

complexity.

Alastair"

=====

- - - - - - -

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 instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.

http://im.yahoo.com/

Received on Wed May 10 2000 - 18:30:06 PDT

Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 18:27:33 -0700 (PDT)

--- Alastair Malcolm wrote:

Since I have maintained that the best definition

of 'you' is your observer-moment, I'll respond to

this. You appear, above, to be claiming that it is

necessary to believe that there is a "you" extended

over time, and that your post showed that. Let's have

a look at this legendary post. (It is quoted in full

below.)

It is clear that what you really claimed is that

believing that "you" are just an observer-moment, is

the same as ordinary (AUH) physics. Perhaps Fritz'

proposal made some other claim, but clearly you did

not show any problem with the observer-moment

*definition* of "you".

In fact, it seems to me that any claim that an

extended definition of "you" is needed would require

new physics (mind-like hidden variables). (The only

reasonable extended definition I see is merely the

option to label an extended implementation of a

computation as "you". Recall that a particular

implementation has a finite time duration though even

if the overall measure (~# of implementations) decays

with a tail.)

"Re: Everything is Just a Memory

From: Alastair Malcolm

Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 04:52:07

From: Fritz Griffith <fritzgriffith.domain.name.hidden>

whether you use MW or my

its own predicts 'chaos

highest for chaotic universes

potentially solvable for AUH

observer moment theory

my earlier post). The

information specification

can be considered as

single observer moment,

that can support any

emotion, creativity and

paper for more details.

just one explicit

Copenhagen-style approach

approach. I believe that

plentitude, and therefore the

simple, even the same, as

theory.

I was always assuming that you were referring to a

plenitude, I was just trying to keep things simple by

mentioning only one. A plenitude of *only* observer

moments would have much the same problems as I

mentioned for one, with some compression available for

the whole range of possible SAS (say conscious)

memories. More likely, I would guess, is that you are

thinking in terms of a plenitude *including* all

possible observer moments. If the equation describing

this plenitude is the same as an AUH theory, I can't

see how your single observer moment theory differs

from ordinary physics (extended as necessary to

encompass other universes). If the equation is

different (the extra assumption I have referred to

earlier), then not only would some justification be

needed for why a different physics generates the

illusion of memories of our physics in action, but

also how this new physics could be simpler than

conventional TOE physics, bearing in mind it has to

support (at least) observer moments, with all their

complexity.

Alastair"

=====

- - - - - - -

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 instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.

http://im.yahoo.com/

Received on Wed May 10 2000 - 18:30:06 PDT

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