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

From: Hal Finney <hal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 08:59:34 -0700 (PDT)

Saibal Mitra writes:
> This is actualy another argument against QTI. There are only a finite number
> of different versions of observers. Suppose a 'subjective' time evolution on
> the set of all possible observers exists that is always well defined.
> Suppose we start with observer O1, and under time evolution it evolves to
> O2, which then evolves to O3 etc. Eventually an On will be mapped back to O1
> (if this never happened that would contradict the fact that there are only a
> finite number of O's). But mapping back to the initial state doesn't
> conserve memory. You can thus only subjectively experience yourself evolving
> for a finite amount of time.

Unless... you constantly get bigger! Then you could escape the
limitations of the Bekenstein bound.

Hal Finney
Received on Fri Jun 03 2005 - 13:25:26 PDT