Re: on formally describable universes and measures

From: Stephen Paul King <>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 09:29:44 -0500

Dear George,

George Levy wrote:

> 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...
> >
> [GL]
> 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.


    Umm, no! I am suggesting that *all* "objects" are either an observer or a part of an observer. I am
attacking the anthrocentrist definition of "observer." I am suggesting that any "object" that can have a
QM wave function associated with it *is an observer*, this would apply to an electron, a human, a
galaxy, etc. I am taking the work of Prof. Hitoshi Kitada to its logical conclusion (See: )

> > > [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?
> >
> [GL]
> 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. :-(


    Were can I find it? Could you give me an exact URL?

> [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?....


    Yes, if we are going to consider logical implication chaining and seek to explain the appearance of
temporal "flow" we must include concatenation. If we throw out the possibility of partial orderings what
do we have left?

> [GL]
> > > 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.)
> [GL]
> The constraint is the "I" (Anthropic principle)


    Ok, but I think that the self-reference implicit in "I" is not necessary. That is the "strong"
anthropic principle. Let's just stick to a "very weak" version, were the observers are not necessarily
carbon based.

> [SPK]
> > 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:
> >
> [GL]
> 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 not 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.


    The problem that I have with that is that we can run into severe problems with the notion of a
"source". It looks to me that your statement here contradict your earlier statement that "There is no
"previous" in the sense of previous time, only in terms of logical antecedent. 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." I t would make more sense if
the "initial boundary condition" were given within each and every instantiation of an observation, e.g.
every time an observation is made a new universe is created. What you call the "one Universe" is what I
call the Totality. Each observer has a "universe" as its percept.

> [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.
> [GL]
> 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.


    Right, right! This is a tricky idea! The Totality is "paradoxical" for it is Complete (in the
Goedelian sense) and is this equal to it representation. Paradox is necessarily problematic! (See: ) While there is no unique factorization
of the Totality into "parts" it is decomposable into "Incomplete" subsets. Prof. Kitada has shown how
this works and how time can be derived there from:

> George

Kindest regards,

Received on Wed Mar 07 2001 - 06:32:13 PST

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