Re: on formally describable universes and measures

From: George Levy <GLevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 21:38:54 -0800

Stephen Paul King wrote:

> Umm, let me break this down into chucks and try to see if we are understanding
> each other. My notion of a "previous time" was couched within a notion that is similar
> to J. A. Wheeler's notion of a "Surprise 20 Questions Game" and I did not state so
> explicitly. I am playing with the idea that time is a "first person" attribute and thus
> is not to be considered as "objective" nor absolute (as in the Newtonian sense). I think
> that our ideas are similar but we may have semantic differences here. ;-)

OK but I am not familiar with Wheeler's game.

>
> > [GL]
>
> > In addition, the conscious points are multiply connected and the
> > connections are a function of the points themselves. In other words each point could
> > have several priors and several successors.
>
> [SPK]
>
> I would agree, but I would argue that we could cause some confusion if we are not
> careful. We have to distinguish the a priori possible (or probable) experiences from
> the a posteriori experiences themselves.

I don't think I follow you. There is no such a thing as "probable." All connections are
actualized albeit in different degrees according to their RELATIVE measures. We now get into
the discussion of measure which has been endlessly debated before. Suffice to say that I
think that while measure can be relatively different between two transitions, there is NO
WAY to establish an ABSOLUTE value for measure because of the infinity of the plenitude.
(i.e., Loosely speaking, if each transition has infinite measure, the only way to compare
two transitions is to take the limit of their ratios.) Hence, relatively to the observer,
his own measure can always be assumed to be one. This remains true as long as the number of,
or magnitude of the adversities in his environment remains of a lower cardinality than his
own measure. When the adversities are too severe then his consciousness stops from
propagating (being linked) to those very adverse states. It's kind of a Cosmological
Principle.

> I am exploring the idea that communication
> between observers plays an important role in restricting and/or distinguishing the two.
> I hope that you understand this difference between a priori and a posteriori that I am
> writing about. ;-)

I don't understand. In the constext of Markov chain, all the information is contained in the
current states.

>
> > [GL]
>
> > The structure is "web-like."
>
> [SPK]
>
> Yes, I agree. I have been exploring this idea with several people for some time
> using the notions of Leibniz and Spinoza. Let me recap. Are you saying that conscious
> points (I can them them "monads" ala Leibniz) has a "web-like structure?"
>

Kind of. They are connected by a web-like set of allowed logical transitions.

>
> > [GL]
>
> > (The universe does not just splits with each Quantum event, it can also merge)
>
> [SPK]
>
> Umm, here I have a problem! You say that the universe splits and merges;

Sorry! In an effort to communicate, I was employing terms used in the popular literature
about the MWI. I should NOT have said that the universe "splits." It's not the universe that
splits and merge. It's our conscious flow through the interconnections between the OM or
conscious points. Schoedinger equation really describes the spread of our consciousness
through the web.

> I think it
> best to view each points as a set of states independent of past information (i.e.,
> first order Markov chain). To make sense, a transition needs only satisfy the
> current states. The "past" states are irrelevant or ambiguous.

> We could think of the splitting and merging as local topological properties of a
> multiply connected manifold and I think that such a thought would be in line with the
> idea of first order Markov chains, but I am not sure now you are thinking about how the
> points are related (via transitions). It is obvious that "past states" refer to
> information that is encoded within the current state and that is what I meant by my
> statement. I think that we agree that the "past" is not something that is "out there"
> outside of the experience of the present moment. ;-)
>

I agree with this.

>
> [SPK]
>
> I am interested in your thoughts of Pratt et al's ideas. ;-)
>

Sorry. Pardon my ignorance. I don't know who Pratt is. Would he be by any chance one of the
two guys who make airplane engines. ;-)

> >[SPK]
>
> Ok, would we agree that the anthropic principle (weak?) is true in the sense that
> any observer will have first person perspectives (experiences) that have a probability
> of 1 if and only if such are consistent with its existence. Also, if you are going to
> say that consciousness is a static phenomenon then could you explain how the appearance
> of change comes about?

In the same way a derivative describes movement while being itself static.The logical links
would have to contain directionality information.

> Have you by chance read Julian Barbour's book The End of Time?

Sorry, I didn't have a chance.


George
Received on Mon Mar 05 2001 - 21:44:04 PST