Le 02-juin-05, à 08:48, Lee Corbin a écrit :
> What? And I thought that I had understood how the term "Observer
> Moment" is used on this list! :-(
You are optimist :)
According to Nick Bostrom who introduced the term, "observer-moments
are pieces of subjective time"
(
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m1220.html).
I think that some people here associate them to computational states. I
do that but it is not a 1-1 correspondence. You can associate an
"observer-moment" to some (sufficiently rich) computational state, but
to each "observer-moment" you can only associate an infinity of
computational states. All regularly accessed by the Universal
Dovetailer through many computations/histories. Now those computational
state are relative state. They make sense only with respect to a most
probable history/universal-machine/maximal consistent extension ... I
don't think the ASSA people would agree, and I would appreciate they
make more precise their notion of "observer moment".
> Bruno wrote, incidentally, "With comp the relative measure from one OM
> is based on all comp histories going through [those] states. We should
> not measure the OM by its finite description...", and so it's possible
> that he is agreeing with my usage of the term "Observer Moment"."
I hope so ;), we will see.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Thu Jun 02 2005 - 09:59:32 PDT