- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:54:57 -0400

Dear George,

Interleaving.

----- Original Message -----

From: "George Levy" <glevy.domain.name.hidden>

To: "Everything List" <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>

Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:58 PM

Subject: Re: are we in a simulation?

*> Hi Stephen,
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> Stephen Paul King wrote:
*

*>
*

*> > Dear Friends,
*

*> >
*

*> > Does computational complexity (such as NP-Completeness, etc.)
*

*> > and computational "power" requirements factor into the idea of
*

*> > simulated worlds?
*

*> >
*

*> >
*

*>
*

*> It may. Also important is the issue that Tegmark raised in the
*

*> Scientific American article about the ordering of an infinite set. The
*

*> probability of the occurence of an element of any subset (say the even
*

*> numbers) can be altered depending on how the element of the set (say the
*

*> natural numbers) are ordered.
*

[SPK]

Is this related to what D. Deutsch mentions regarding the "measure on

the ensemble" in his paper "It From Qubit"? It might also be related to the

Burali-Forti paradox?

*>From http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~cebrown/notes/vonHeijenoort.html :
*

"The Burali-Forti paradox deals with the "greatest ordinal"--which is

obtained by assuming the set of ordinals is well-ordered [and, of course,

that it is a set!]--which must be a member of the set of ordinals and

simultaneously greater than any ordinal in the set."

*>
*

*> So if we assume that the multiworlds are an infinite set, to compute the
*

*> probability of any event we need to know how the multiwords are ordered.
*

*> I conjecture that the ordering should be anthropy related.
*

*>
*

[SPK]

Do you mean "entropy"?

*> Let's consider a double slit diffraction experiment. The multiworlds are
*

*> ordered according to the output diffraction pattern. Since the phases
*

*> add up to produce this pattern, it seems that the process is linear,
*

*> (thus simplifying computation) so computational complexity and
*

*> computational power do seem to be of relevance.
*

*>
*

*> George.
*

[SPK]

I am still struggling with my intuitions regarding how to think of the

liner superposition of QM states as "multiple worlds". For one thing,

nowhere does there seem to be a place to embed the notion of an observer

other than the notion of the observable itself, but we don't have a formal

(or even informal!) way of defining the idea of a relation between and

"observer" and observables. Do you have any ideas?

Kindest regards,

Stephen

Received on Thu Jun 12 2003 - 23:56:16 PDT

Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:54:57 -0400

Dear George,

Interleaving.

----- Original Message -----

From: "George Levy" <glevy.domain.name.hidden>

To: "Everything List" <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>

Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:58 PM

Subject: Re: are we in a simulation?

[SPK]

Is this related to what D. Deutsch mentions regarding the "measure on

the ensemble" in his paper "It From Qubit"? It might also be related to the

Burali-Forti paradox?

"The Burali-Forti paradox deals with the "greatest ordinal"--which is

obtained by assuming the set of ordinals is well-ordered [and, of course,

that it is a set!]--which must be a member of the set of ordinals and

simultaneously greater than any ordinal in the set."

[SPK]

Do you mean "entropy"?

[SPK]

I am still struggling with my intuitions regarding how to think of the

liner superposition of QM states as "multiple worlds". For one thing,

nowhere does there seem to be a place to embed the notion of an observer

other than the notion of the observable itself, but we don't have a formal

(or even informal!) way of defining the idea of a relation between and

"observer" and observables. Do you have any ideas?

Kindest regards,

Stephen

Received on Thu Jun 12 2003 - 23:56:16 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:08 PST
*