Re: on formally describable universes and measures

From: George Levy <>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 21:27:56 -0800

Stephen Paul King wrote:

> I am considering the idea that each
> observer (consciousness point) has its own set of a priori probable observations, it is when we
> introduce the possibility of communication between observers that these sets alter...

I hope you are not suggesting that observers have a special status and that communication with an
"observer" is qualitatively different with communication with an inanimate object.

> > [GL]
> > (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.
> [SPK]
> That is interesting! Do you have more information on that?

It's in the book I wrote..... As I have already mentioned in the other post. I did not go very far
along the formal route. Unfortunaltely it's more English than Math. :-(

> > [SPK]
> > > 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. ;-)
> > [GL]
> > I don't understand. In the constext of Markov chain, all the information is contained in the
> > current states.
> [SPK]
> Right, but consider how it is that "current states" are concatenated (strung together),
> especially when you have to consider concurrency issues.

hmmmmm. I don't know.... concatenation implies sequence and therefore seems to smuggle the answer
in. Is concatenation necessary?....

> > Kind of. They are connected by a web-like set of allowed logical transitions.
> [SPK]
> I agree. But could you get into detail on the nature of "allowed"? What is the constraint?
> (I think that all that is needed is the weak anthropic principle but I could be missing
> something.)

The constraint is the "I" (Anthropic principle)

> I think that we should consider the rule "All is allowed that is not Forbidden" (by
> logical contradiction) instead of the usual notion " All is forbidden that is not allowed" (by
> prespecification, e.g. a priori algorithms) Peter Wegner has done a lot of research on this
> issue:

I agree fully with the above. The plenitude provides the principle of "All is allowed" and the
anthropic principle the restriction imposed by ***your own*** existence "that is no forbidden."
Thus each "I" is an initial boundary condition for an anthropic causal chain. When the anthropic
principle is taken back all the way to its source, the "I", the result is a relativistic perception
of the plenitude by each "I." Thus there is only one universe... the plenitude. The only difference
is our perception of it.

> > > >[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?
> > [GL]
> > In the same way a derivative describes movement while being itself static.The logical links
> > would have to contain directionality information.
> [SPK]
> Sure, I agree in principle with that but it is easy to see that something somehow IS
> changing.

hmmmm... phase space for example provides the information of movement while being itself
static....To say that the plenitude itself is changing leads to a paradox....The illusion of change
is embedded in each conscious point and is a result of the directional logical links which depend
themselves on the type of consciousness we have.

Received on Tue Mar 06 2001 - 21:37:02 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST