Re: What is an observer moment?

From: George Levy <glevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:35:02 -0700

Bruno Marchal wrote:

>
>
> Le 21-juin-05, à 05:33, George Levy a écrit :


> Note that according to this definition the set of observer states may
> also encompass states with inconsistent histories as long as they are
> indistinguishable.

The possibilities of observer moment being partially associated with
(slightly) inconsistent histories resolves the question of how valid but
erroneous observer moments can exist. For example I could make an
arithmetical mistake such as 8*5 = 56 or I temporarily believe that
Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1592.

> >An interesting thought is that a psychological first person can
> surf simultaneously through a large number of physical OMs
>
> With comp, we should say that the first person MUST surf
> simultaneously through an INFINITY of third person OMs.

I agree there is and infinity of OM's that a psychological first person
surfs through. But I would not say these OM's are "third person,"
because there is no third person to observe them. A psychological "third
person" would be too spread out among OM's to observe any one in
particular.

>
> (I would not use the term "physical" at all, because at this stage it
> is not defined. But with the negation of comp + assumption of slightly
> incorrect QM what you say seems to me plausible.)
>
Are you saying that COMP does not admit (slightly) inconsistent
histories? I am not sure if I agree with this. I can be a psychological
first person and still say "yes doctor" to a computer transplant into my
brain.

George Levy
Received on Wed Jun 22 2005 - 14:36:07 PDT