Hi Saibal,
Let me add a question to your insightful post. Could we consider the
"hardware: itself to be a simulation as well?
Onward!
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Saibal Mitra" <smitra.domain.name.hidden>
To: "Aditya Varun Chadha" <adichad.domain.name.hidden>; "Lee Corbin"
<lcorbin.domain.name.hidden>; <everything-list.domain.name.hidden.com>; ""Hal Finney""
<hal.domain.name.hidden>; "Russell Standish" <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden.EDU.AU>
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 12:19 PM
Subject: OMs are events
>I agree with the notion of OMs as events in some suitably chosen space.
> Observers are defined by the programs that generate them. If we identify
> universes with programs then observers are just embedded universes. An
> observer moment is just a qualia experienced by the observer, which is
> just
> an event in the observer's universe.
>
>
> I don't think that Hal's idea of identifying brain patterns with OMs will
> be
> successful. The brain is just the hardware that runs a program (the
> observer). If I run a simulation of our solar system on a computer, then
> the
> relevant events are e.g. that Jupiter is in such and such a position. This
> is associated with the state of the transistors of the computer running
> the
> program. But that same pattern could arise in a completely different
> calculation. You would have to extract exactly what program is running on
> the machine to be able to define OMs like that. To do that you need to
> feed
> the program with different kinds of input and study the output, otherwise
> you'll fall prey to the famous ''clock paradox'' (you can map the time
> evolution of a clock to that of any object, including brains).
>
>
> Saibal
Received on Sun Jul 31 2005 - 13:49:00 PDT