Re: on formally describable universes and measures

From: James Higgo <j.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 09:35:02 -0000

I agree, except that there is no 'transition' from one OM to the next. What
is it that 'transits' ?
----- Original Message -----
From: George Levy <GLevy.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: on formally describable universes and measures


>
>
> Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> > On 03-Mar-01, George Levy wrote:
> >
> > > I do not view these so called "parallel" universes as *separate*. It's
> > > really one single multiverse and the wave function exists in the
> > > multiverse....
> >
> > How can this multiverse have a single wave function when it is supposed
> > to have different physical laws in it's different constituent
> > universes? This seems to be just poetry, in which the meaning of words
> > is considered infinitely malleable.
> >
> > Brent Meeker
>
> Great comment which shows why you and others do not understand the full
> implications of first and third persons perspectives. There is no single
> set of physical laws that spans the whole plenitude. In fact, the
plenitude
> includes all possible physical laws. To be more precise, physical laws are
> first person phenomenons that are defined by the characteristics of each
> conscious point (observer moment, or "I") Thus, consciousness and physical
> laws emerge together, and are reflections of each other. They occupies the
> same logical domain and are bounded by the same limits. A transition from
> one conscious point (observer moment) to the next must be logical at the
> conscious level and simultaneously at the physical law level.
Consciousness
> exists because of the physical laws (causality), and the physical laws
exist
> because of consciousness (anthropy). This is why the world makes sense and
> also why we don't see white rabbits.
>
> Propagation of the wave function is the logical linkage between conscious
> points. It appears to obey "universal physical laws" only because third
> person perspective is an illusion supported by the fact that different
> observers share the same logical/physical reference frame.
>
> I am not sure what the "orthodox" MWI but I know there are many variants.
My
> opinion on this matter is probably one of the most extreme in this group.
> But, once you start travelling along the MWI path, you've got to go all
the
> way. I believe that it is the only logical approach and is unavoidable.
>
> George
>
>
Received on Sun Mar 04 2001 - 14:00:28 PST