RE: OMs are events

From: John M <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 13:01:54 -0700 (PDT)

to all:
since I missed hundreds of posts in this list - now
extremely proliferous and sweeping through "subjects"
making backtracking a bore,
do we have an agreement on
WHAT do we call an EVENT? Also: To OBSERVE?

In my lay common sense I am inclined to call a step in
a change an event, and the acknowledgment (absorption
acceptance, incorporation) of information an
observation - by anything, photon, universe or G. B.
Shaw.
In such semantics an OM may be a qualifier in events.
Not the event proper.

I know this is splittin hair, but we may fix what we
are talking about. Just to keep our sanity.

Best regards

John Mikes
--- Lee Corbin <lcorbin.domain.name.hidden> wrote:

> Saibal writes
>
> > 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.
>
> Is there a possible confusion here on the one hand
> between
> "event" as a witnessed event by extensive systems
> like observers,
> and on the other hand event as used in, say,
> spacetime physics?
> ("Observers" are *usually* taken to be rather
> complex systems.)
>
> One interpretation of what Aditya was saying (and
> which I know Stephen
> sometimes entertains) is that every film in a
> camera, or even anything
> whatsoever on which a record can be made could be
> thought of as an
> observer. That is---perhaps---anything that can be
> influenced at all.
> So I'm not sure what you mean by "observer". Could
> you put some limits
> on it?
>
> Lee
>
>
Received on Sun Jul 31 2005 - 16:09:54 PDT