I do not understand what is meant by "Observer Moment" [OM].
I went back and found the very first post that contains such a
reference. It was by Nick Bostrom and is at:
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m68.html
The language in this post indicates that various processes take place
during an OM.
Quoting a small part of the post:
Then, finding
that your present observer-moment is at time 0 gives you reason
(because of Bayes' theorem) to prefer a hypothesis according to which
a larger fraction of all observer-moments are at time 0 to a
hypothesis according to which a smaller fraction of all
observer-moments are at that time. In the present example, that means
that finding yourself at t=0, you should conclude that the chance
that both coins will land heads is less than 1/4. This also means
that the chance of the first coin landing heads is less than 1/2.
Here we see processes such as discovery, preferring, and concluding taking
place within a moment.
This remains common in the language surrounding the idea of OM in the
current threads. See for example Stephen Paul King 's composite post
raising similar questions at:
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m7192.html
Where various authors use processes within an OM such as reference to a
memory and thinking.
All this is confusing. How can a process take place within a single moment?
In my view [compressed] is that all possible states of universes preexist
[perhaps compressed as interpretable numbers]. The system imbedding these
states has a dynamic arising out of the incompleteness of some of its
components which randomly provides these states with an instantation of
"reality" [being] of indeterminate dimensions. This will give rise to very
long strings of states given such being such that the succession of states
within the string can be compressed into a few simple rules [such as this
string?]. There is no "observation" in this dynamic, but rather just a
"flow" [not necessarily steady] of being.
Hal Ruhl
Received on Tue Jul 05 2005 - 12:55:17 PDT