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

From: Saibal Mitra <smitra.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 01:24:23 +0200

----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----

Van: "Patrick Leahy" <jpl.domain.name.hidden>

Aan: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>

Verzonden: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 05:57 PM

Onderwerp: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

*> Of course, many of you (maybe all) may be defining pasts from an
*

*> information-theoretic point of view, i.e. by identifying all
*

*> observer-moments in the multiverse which are equivalent as perceived by
*

*> the observer; in which case the above point is quite irrelevant. (But you
*

*> still have to distinguish the different branches to find the total measure
*

*> for each OM).
*

This is indeed my position. I prefer to define an observer moment as the

information needed to generate an observer. According to the ''everything''

hypothesis (I've just seen that you don't subscibe this) an observer moment

defines its own universe. But this universe is very complex and therefore

must have a very low measure. It is thus far more likely that the observer

finds himself embedded in a low complexity universe.

One of the arguments in favor of the observer moment picture is that it

solves Tegmark's quantum suicide paradox. If you start with a set of all

possible observer moments on which a measure is defined (which can be

calculated in principle using the laws of physics), then the paradox never

arises. At any moment you can think of yourself as being randomly drawn from

the set of all possible observer moments. The observer moment who has

survived the suicide experiment time after time after time has a very very

very low measure.

Even if one assumes only a single universe described by the MWI, one has to

consider simulations of other universes. Virtual observers living in such a

simulated universe will perceive their world as real. The measure of such

embedded universes will probably decay exponentialy with complexity....

Saibal

Received on Tue May 24 2005 - 19:28:16 PDT

Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 01:24:23 +0200

----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----

Van: "Patrick Leahy" <jpl.domain.name.hidden>

Aan: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>

Verzonden: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 05:57 PM

Onderwerp: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

This is indeed my position. I prefer to define an observer moment as the

information needed to generate an observer. According to the ''everything''

hypothesis (I've just seen that you don't subscibe this) an observer moment

defines its own universe. But this universe is very complex and therefore

must have a very low measure. It is thus far more likely that the observer

finds himself embedded in a low complexity universe.

One of the arguments in favor of the observer moment picture is that it

solves Tegmark's quantum suicide paradox. If you start with a set of all

possible observer moments on which a measure is defined (which can be

calculated in principle using the laws of physics), then the paradox never

arises. At any moment you can think of yourself as being randomly drawn from

the set of all possible observer moments. The observer moment who has

survived the suicide experiment time after time after time has a very very

very low measure.

Even if one assumes only a single universe described by the MWI, one has to

consider simulations of other universes. Virtual observers living in such a

simulated universe will perceive their world as real. The measure of such

embedded universes will probably decay exponentialy with complexity....

Saibal

Received on Tue May 24 2005 - 19:28:16 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:10 PST
*