Re: Subjective measure? How does that work?

From: John M <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:19:00 -0500

I find some inconsistencies in your post:
> qubitstring containing all of the possible information-states implied in
> such a long bitstring,...<
possible, of course, to OUR knowledge (imagination). Anthropomorph
thinking about the MW.

> Let Ui be an "internal-time-ordered" set of information-states
> s1,s2,...,s(now) comprising an observable universe.<
How 'bout the Uis where 'time' has not evolved? Excluded?
Observable by what means? We have a pretty narrow range in mind.
Would you restrict the MWI to our cognitive inventory of 2004?
Does that mean that the MW was "smaller" in 1000 (with the then
epistemized contents of cognition)?

>... must be informationally consistent (not law violating) in conjunction
...<
what "law"? presumed omniscient?

Just malicious remarks. I appreciate to try and to criticize.
I have no better ones.

JM




----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Hawthorne" <egh.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: Subjective measure? How does that work?


> Can you explain briefly why the choice of measure is subjective? I
> haven't read any of the
> books you mentioned (will try to get to them) but am familiar with
> computability theory
> and decision theory.
>
> In my favourite interpretation of the multiverse, as a very long
> (possibly lengthening)
> qubitstring containing all of the possible information-states implied in
> such a long bitstring,
> the "absolute" measure of any information-state (instantaneous state of
> some universe)
> would be the same as any other state of the same bitstring length.
>
> In that framing of things, I guess there's another definition of
> measure, which goes something
> like this:
>
> Let Ui be an "internal-time-ordered" set of information-states
> s1,s2,...,s(now) comprising
> an observable universe.
>
> Ui, to be observable, is constrained to be an informationally
> self-consistent
> (too complex a concept to get into right here) set of information-states.
>
> There is a constraint on any information-state which qualifies to be
> s(now+1) in any observable
> universe path s1,s2,...,S(now). Specifically, any information-state that
> can be S(now+1)
> must be informationally consistent (not law violating) in conjunction
> with s1,s2,...,S(now).
>
> Furthermore, the history that has evolved as s1,s2,...,s(now) has the
> result of determining
> the Ui-relative probability of any particular other information-state
> being able to become
> s(now+1) in that observable path.
>
> That now-in-an-observable-universe-relative probability of successorhood
> in that universe
> of any other information-state is then a universe-specific measure
> value, or more specifically,
> a now-state-of-universe specific measure value.
>
> That now-in-an-observable-universe measure (for potential successor
> information states for that
> universe state-set) may correspond to the probabilities of all the
> outcomes of all the wave equations
> of quantum-states which are observable in the "now" moment in that
universe.
>
> As a comp sci person and not a physicist, I look forward to your read on
> where my interpretation
> is misguided, and for a better interpretation.
>
> Eric
>

PS I stay out of the 'ethix - morality' discussion, which IMO is definitely
Earthbound - human - cultural - debatable. Eric mentioned lately the
group-evolution, in which respect altruism (moral thinking?) is not out,
but go 1 step higher - still within the earthly biosphere - and morality
turns into "foodchain". Dine or dined. There is no "goal" only change.
Survival is a result. Human groups can identify what is good for them.
E.g. to eat animals and plants - fellow living creatures.
Received on Sat Jan 24 2004 - 16:50:15 PST