RE: The Rapidly-Accelerating Computer

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:59:01 +0100

There is no distinction. No observer-moments are related. No observations
are related to events. But of course, all observer-moments exists, and all
events exist, so you could argue that all observations are accurate.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: hal.domain.name.hidden [SMTP:hal.domain.name.hidden.org]
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 4:52 PM
> To: james.higgo.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: RE: The Rapidly-Accelerating Computer
>
> > There is an obsever-moment corresponding, roughly, to the idea 'I am Hal
> > finney and I see the result of an infinite calculation' - so what? On
> the
> > level of our classical universe, it's not possible. But our classical
> > universe itself is not possible... etc.
>
> But it is possible; I could imagine an observer coming into being and
> thinking exactly that thought. Of course, the observer would be wrong, at
> least if the observer-moment was supposed to be embedded in my universe.
>
> It seems to me that this question inherently involves a history, a
> sequence
> of observer moments, in a single universe. How else will you distinguish
> between an observer who *believes* he is seeing the output of an infinite
> calculation, and one who actually is?
>
> Hal
Received on Fri Sep 15 2000 - 09:02:08 PDT