Stephen King wrote:
PS, to Russell: I think that you are conflating consciousness
with self-awareness in section 9.5 of your book. wlEmoticon-
sadsmile[1].png The two are not the same thing. Consciousness
is purely passive. Self-awareness is active in that is involves
the continuous modeling
. Is the notion of an
“observer moment” corresponding to “the smallest possible
conscious experience” related to Bruno’s concept of substitution
level? ISTM that both act like the idea of a coarse graining on an
ensemble that is used to define the entropy of a system in that
all of the members
On 5/1/2011 3:23 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
It does not exist ontologically, but still exist (and is
unavoidable) epistemologically. X can exist, but the UDA shows that it
would be without any explanatory purpose: we cannot attach
consciousness to it, so we have no choice, for explaining the
From: meekerdb
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 7:24 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Max Substitution level = Min Observer Moment?
On 5/1/2011 3:23 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
It does not exist ontologically, but still exist (and is unavoidable)
epistemologically. X can
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 11:45 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Reading The Theory of Nothing
On 29 Apr 2011, at 02:42, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Please allow me to ask another question. Is the notion of an “observer
moment” corresponding
theorizing. I'm personally intrigued by the Helon
model, but don't really have the smarts to do anything with it.
I take this as indicating that you hold that something [information
processing?] is going on during an observer moment. This is as in your book
as I understand it so far. I do not see
Hi Russell:
[My current mail client does not work the way I like and I can not spend the
time to insert s in the right places so this indicator of who said what
will be missing from my posts for awhile, I will use an xxx separator for
my responses.]
Selecting out space like aspects would
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 09:29:40PM -0500, Hal Ruhl wrote:
As I understand your Theory of Nothing book the Everything in it has or at
least contains time like components [time postulate]. I agree but
apparently for a different reason.
In your reply to Jason you allowed that the OM machine
[information
processing?] is going on during an observer moment. This is as in your book
as I understand it so far. I do not see this in my model. In my model an
observer moment is a fixed state terminated by a transition to the next
state. The selection of a next state is in part determined
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 09:35:47PM -0500, Hal Ruhl wrote:
Hi Russell:
In response to Jason you wrote:
An OM is a state of a machine. In as far as the machine is embedded
in space, the the OM is spread across space. Successive OMs involve
state change,
In my model a universe is an
Hi Russell:
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 09:35:47PM -0500, Hal Ruhl wrote:
Hi Russell:
In response to Jason you wrote:
An OM is a state of a machine. In as far as the machine is embedded
in space, the the OM is spread across space. Successive OMs involve
state change,
In my model a
Hi Russell:
In response to Jason you wrote:
An OM is a state of a machine. In as far as the machine is embedded
in space, the the OM is spread across space. Successive OMs involve
state change,
In my model a universe is an incomplete entity [a Something or a Nothing]
within the Everything [the
paper yet?).
Yes, I've read it, and I think I have a more formal way of describing
my objection to it. If there were a device that could randomly pick a
conscious observer moment from among all conscious observers on earth,
and allow you to experience that perspective for a moment, I would
have
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 01:28:42AM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
Yes, I've read it, and I think I have a more formal way of describing
my objection to it. If there were a device that could randomly pick a
conscious observer moment from among all conscious observers on earth,
and allow you
] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 01:28:42AM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
Yes, I've read it, and I think I have a more formal way of describing
my objection to it. If there were a device that could randomly pick a
conscious observer moment from among all conscious observers on earth,
and allow
objection to it. If there were a device that could randomly pick a
conscious observer moment from among all conscious observers on earth,
and allow you to experience that perspective for a moment, I would
have the opinion this machine is a valid tool for drawing conclusions
on the likelihood
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 02:16:06PM -0700, Jason wrote:
A common theme on the everything list is the idea of an Observer
moment, which is a snapshot of an observer's mind in a point of time,
or the smallest amount of time a single conscious moment can be
experienced in. However I think
A common theme on the everything list is the idea of an Observer
moment, which is a snapshot of an observer's mind in a point of time,
or the smallest amount of time a single conscious moment can be
experienced in. However I think this overlooks the notion that
information can be embedded across
Hi John,
Le 11-nov.-07, à 23:33, John Mikes a écrit :
Bruno, I hope it will be accessible to me, too, by simple computerese
software.
Normally there should be no difficulties. My goal is not to explain all
the technics, but the minimal things which I estimate to be necessary
for having a
Bruno, I hope it will be accessible to me, too, by simple computerese
software.
John
On Nov 8, 2007 11:31 AM, David Nyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 6, 2:37 pm, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have almost finished the posts on the lobian machine I have promised.
I have to
On Nov 6, 2:37 pm, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have almost finished the posts on the lobian machine I have promised.
I have to make minor changes and to look a bit the spelling. I cannot
do that this week, so I will send it next week. Thanks for your
patience.
Thanks - I'll
Hi David,
I have almost finished the posts on the lobian machine I have promised.
I have to make minor changes and to look a bit the spelling. I cannot
do that this week, so I will send it next week. Thanks for your
patience. I give you the plan, though, which I will actually also
follow for
Dear Bruno,
No. But making it precise and searching consequences helps to avoid
misunderstanding. The comp hyp is really a religious belief: it *is* a
belief in the fact that you can be reincarnated through a digital
reconstitution of yourself relatively to some hopefully stable set of
Le 14-sept.-07, à 00:17, John Mikes a écrit :
Bruno, that was quite a response. Let me just include those part to
which I have something to say - in most cases your 'half-agreement'
cuts my guts.
==
...I like very much David Deutsch's
idea that if we are scientist we are in
Le 13-sept.-07, à 19:52, Brent Meeker a écrit :
A theory also can be contradicted by a fact. The theory need not be
contradictory, i.e. capable of proving false, in order to be
contradicted.
Yes sure! Actually the second incompleteness theorem (GODEL II) makes
this remark genuine even
Dear Günther,
Le 13-sept.-07, à 21:37, Günther Greindl a écrit :
The problem is: in math what follows from the axioms is true per
definition (that is what following from the axioms mean).
Not at all. If you were true, no inconsistent theory in math would
appear.
You are right, my above
Dear Günther,
Le 12-sept.-07, à 16:49, Günther Greindl a écrit :
The problem is: in math what follows from the axioms is true per
definition (that is what following from the axioms mean).
Not at all. If you were true, no inconsistent theory in math would
appear. Axioms are just provisory
Bruno Marchal wrote:
...
I agree with this. You can rule out a theory when it leads to a
contradiction, but only *once* you get that contradiction. (A theory
can be contradictory without you ever knowing that fact).
A theory also can be contradicted by a fact. The theory need not be
Dear Bruno,
The problem is: in math what follows from the axioms is true per
definition (that is what following from the axioms mean).
Not at all. If you were true, no inconsistent theory in math would
appear.
You are right, my above sentence was too simple.
New try:
All sentences that
Bruno, that was quite a response. Let me just include those part to which I
have something to say - in most cases your 'half-agreement' cuts my guts.
==
...I like very much David Deutsch's
idea that if we are scientist we are in principle willing to know that
our theory is wrong, but
Le 12-sept.-07, à 00:41, John Mikes a écrit :
Bruno, you ARE a teacher (a good and passionate one) but your
imagination is insufficient. You cannot imagine how much I don't
know. pick up 'words' and 'phrases' and apply common sense to them
with a certain authoritative flair, so those
Dear Bruno, Dear List,
You could be right. The point we are addressing is the question of
making our hypotheses clear enough so that we can refute them or make
sense of how we could have them refuted at least in principle.
I also keep away from ANY thought experiences, they are products
Le 10-sept.-07, à 21:03, John Mikes a écrit :
Dear Bruno, i failed to acknowledge your kind reply - and others
joining in - for the past month, not because I have been tied up with
'other' WEB lists, but because I realized that i have nothing to say
in kind of the language you use.
No
Bruno, you ARE a teacher (a good and passionate one) but your imagination is
insufficient. You cannot imagine how much I don't know. pick up 'words' and
'phrases' and apply common sense to them with a certain authoritative flair,
so those who understand the topic can think that I am talking
Dear Bruno, i failed to acknowledge your kind reply - and others joining in
- for the past month, not because I have been tied up with 'other' WEB
lists, but because I realized that i have nothing to say in kind of the
language you use. Not only are the terms unfamiliar (I have to think hard to
Le 31-août-07, à 16:54, Lennart Nilsson a écrit :
Bruno says:
...the notion of computability is absolute.
David Deutsch says:
OK, but on this point David, as he says himself, disagrees with 100% of
the mathematicians.
OK, this *is* not an argument
We see around us a
On 02/09/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could have chosen a better moment because next week I have exams
and will not be in my office, but the week after I will try to explain
this. It is necessary to get the UDA, and even more for the AUDA (the
lobian interview).
Hi Bruno
Hi David,
Le 29-août-07, à 16:57, I (Bruno Marchal) wrote :
I must go. Tomorrow I begin to explain the idea of a computable
function. To let you think in advance I give you a problem: have you an
idea why NON computable functions have to exist?
I feel a bit guilty because, 'course, that
Bruno says:
...the notion of computability is absolute.
David Deutsch says:
We see around us a computable universe; that is to say, of all
possible mathematical objects and relationships, only an infinitesimal
proportion
are ever instantiated in the relationships of physical objects and
Lennart Nilsson wrote:
Bruno says:
...the notion of computability is absolute.
David Deutsch says:
We see around us a computable universe; that is to say, of all
possible mathematical objects and relationships, only an infinitesimal
proportion
are ever instantiated in the
Le 27-août-07, à 13:27, David Nyman a écrit :
On 16/08/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you drop a pen, to
compute EXACTLY what will happen in principle, you have to consider
all
comp histories in UD* (the complete development of the UD) going
through your actual state
On 28/08/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you drop a pen, to
compute EXACTLY what will happen in principle, you have to consider
all
comp histories in UD* (the complete development of the UD) going
through your actual state (the higher level description of it, which
On 16/08/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you drop a pen, to
compute EXACTLY what will happen in principle, you have to consider all
comp histories in UD* (the complete development of the UD) going
through your actual state (the higher level description of it, which
exists by
On 16/08/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. I will come back on this too.
I'm away until next Thursday, so I'll continue to think about - and
reserve my response to - your last post until I return. I've
received Albert, Cutland, and Franzen, so I've got plenty of bed-time
reading
Le 17-août-07, à 18:12, David Nyman a écrit :
On 16/08/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. I will come back on this too.
I'm away until next Thursday, so I'll continue to think about - and
reserve my response to - your last post until I return. I've
received Albert,
Le 15-août-07, à 17:00, David Nyman a écrit :
What comp (by UDA+FILMED-GRAPH) shows, is that, once the digitalness
of
your local relative description is taken seriously, you can no more
distinguish the comp stories existing below your comp substitution
level.
So, 'materiality' - for
Le 13-août-07, à 17:37, David Nyman a écrit :
On 11/08/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That the 'comp reality' is founded on the number realm, is almost
trivial. What is not trivial at all, and this is what the UDA shows,
is
that, once you say yes to the digital doctor, for
Hi David, and all,
Le 15-août-07, à 13:36, Bruno Marchal a écrit :
Where a layman says: the temperature in Toulouse is 34.5, the logician
says: temperature(Toulouse) = 17.
read instead:
Where a layman says: the temperature in Toulouse is 34.5, the logician
says:
On 15/08/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Like Stathis argued a lot, if you identify yourself with your
history/personality there is a sense to be 50 years old, but if you
identify yourself with your matter, you disappear a bit by eating and
shitting (is this correct? polite?)
On 15/08/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David, please recall that one half of the propositions I assert are
false.
Yes, but which half?
Also, my s spelling seems to be uncomputable.
In that case it must lie outside comp reality! :-)
David
Hi David, and all,
Le
Hi Mirek,
Welcome to the list,
Le 13-août-07, à 16:54, Mirek Dobsicek a écrit :
Hello Bruno !
I am a freshman to this list and it seems to me that some kind of a
'course' is going to happen.
Let us say that I try to give some information linking my (already old)
work and the main
Dear John,
Le 12-août-07, à 18:00, John Mikes a écrit :
Dear Bruno,
did your scientific emotion just trapped you into showing that your
theoretical setup makes no sense?
Angels have NO rational meaning, they are phantsms of a (fairy?)tale
and if your math-formulation can be applied to a
Le 12-août-07, à 18:00, John Mikes a écrit :
Please, do not tell me that your theories are as well applicable to
faith-items! Next time sopmebody will calculate the enthalpy of the
resurrection.
Frank Tipler calculated the probability of the resurrection in his last book
The Physics of
Just to clarify - my question to Bruno was serious. He has mentioned
angels before. I thank him for his considered response which I am
still studying.
The part of his post which prompted my question was:
Also, if we are machine (or just lobian), we can indeed contemplate the
consistency of
Le 13-août-07, à 13:29, Kim Jones a écrit :
where he appears to serve the option of being machine or some other
order of being. I must confess that I still don't understand the
ontology of angels as opposed to machines but I'm sure his reply
contains the reason
Don't worry, I will try
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Bruno Marchal
Skickat: den 13 augusti 2007 16:36
Till: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ämne: Re: Rép : Observer Moment = Sigma1-Sentences
I don't think Church thesis can be grasped
conceptually without
On 13/08/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Question to David, and others who could be interested: is the notion
of enumerable and non enumerable set clear? Can you explain why the set
of functions from N to N is not enumerable?
Do please remind us. Off the top of my head, do you
On 11/08/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That the 'comp reality' is founded on the number realm, is almost
trivial. What is not trivial at all, and this is what the UDA shows, is
that, once you say yes to the digital doctor, for some level of
substitution, then your immateriality
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Question to David, and others who could be interested: is the notion
of enumerable and non enumerable set clear? Can you explain why the set
of functions from N to N is not enumerable?
Let us go slow and deep so that everybody can understand, once and for
Dear Bruno,
did your scientific emotion just trapped you into showing that your
theoretical setup makes no sense?
Angels have NO rational meaning, they are phantsms of a (fairy?)tale and if
your math-formulation can be applied to a (really) meaningless
phantasy-object, the credibility of it
Le 10-août-07, à 22:32, David Nyman a écrit :
On 10/08/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. Have you seen that this is going to made physics a branch of
intensional number theory, by which I mean number theory from the
points of view of number ... ?
Insofar as we accept that
be used as a starting point. We will
get it soon after Church thesis.
Now, as I said some days ago, I think that a way to link more
formally my work and the everything discussion can consist in defining
a notion of basic atomic third person observer moment.
It would help me if you
On 10/08/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. Have you seen that this is going to made physics a branch of
intensional number theory, by which I mean number theory from the
points of view of number ... ?
Insofar as we accept that the foundation of 'comp reality' is the
number
Le 10-août-07, à 14:26, David Nyman a écrit :
On 09/08/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope you will not mind if I ask you stupid question, like Do you
know what mathematicians mean by function?.
Sometimes I realize that some people does not grasp what I say because
they
Le 09-août-07, à 11:22, Kim Jones a écrit :
What is lobian apart from la machine, Bruno? Are you referring to
angels here?
Aren't angels machines too?
Angels are not machine. Unless you extend the meaning of machine
'course, but Angels' provability extend the provability of any
was referring only to its relevance as a a starting point. However,
it appears that you think it is.
Now, as I said some days ago, I think that a way to link more
formally my work and the everything discussion can consist in defining
a notion of basic atomic third person observer moment.
It would
is relevant ...
?
The problem you mention is at the cross of my work and the
everything
list. Now, as I said some days ago, I think that a way to link more
formally my work and the everything discussion can consist in
defining
a notion of basic atomic third person observer moment. The UDA
, I think that a way to link more
formally my work and the everything discussion can consist in defining
a notion of basic atomic third person observer moment. The UDA, plus
Church thesis + a theorem proved in Boolos and Jeffrey (but see also
and better perhaps just Franzen's appendix A) makes
is at the cross of my work and the everything
list. Now, as I said some days ago, I think that a way to link more
formally my work and the everything discussion can consist in defining
a notion of basic atomic third person observer moment. The UDA, plus
Church thesis + a theorem proved in Boolos
discussion can consist in defining
a notion of basic atomic third person observer moment. The UDA, plus
Church thesis + a theorem proved in Boolos and Jeffrey (but see also
and better perhaps just Franzen's appendix A) makes it possible to
define the comp third person OMs by the Sigma1
and the everything discussion can consist in defining
a notion of basic atomic third person observer moment. The UDA, plus
Church thesis + a theorem proved in Boolos and Jeffrey (but see also
and better perhaps just Franzen's appendix A) makes it possible to
define the comp third person
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
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
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 21-juin-05, 05:33, George Levy a crit :
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
Le 21-juin-05, à 05:33, George Levy a écrit :
x-tad-bigger An interesting thought is that a psychological first person can surf simultaneously through a large number of physical OMs
/x-tad-bigger
With comp, we should say that the first person MUST surf simultaneously through an INFINITY of third
A
lot of confusion seems to arise about what an observer-moment is. I
would like to propose the following distinction between a physical
observer-moment and a psychological observer moment, along the same
lines that I discussed under the thread copying.
A physical observer moment is defined
I wanted to add a few points to my earlier posting about how to derive
OM measure in a Schmidhuberian multiverse model.
The method is basically to take all the universes where the OM appears
and to sum up the contribution they make to the OM measure. However,
the key idea is that this
Jonathan Colvin writes:
I presume the answer is that rather than look at physical size/weight of our
bodies, one must try to calculate the proportion of the universe's
information content devoted to that part of our beings essential to being an
observer (probably something to do with the
Hal Finney wrote:
I presume the answer is that rather than look at physical
size/weight
of our bodies, one must try to calculate the proportion of the
universe's information content devoted to that part of our beings
essential to being an observer (probably something to do
with the
Jonathan Colvin writes, regarding the Doomsday argument:
There's a simple answer to that one. Presumably, a million years from now in
the Galactic Empire, the Doomsday argument is no longer controversial, and
it will not be a topic for debate. The fact that we are all debating the
Doomsday
Le 14-juin-05, à 00:35, George Levy a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Godel's theorem:
~Bf - ~B(~Bf),
which is equivalent to B(Bf - f) - Bf,
Just a little aside a la Descartes + Godel: (assume that think and
believe are synonymous and
Hi Brent,
You didn't answer my last post where I explain that Bp is different
from Bp p.
I hope you were not too much disturbed by my teacher's tone (which
can be enervating I imagine). Or is it because you don't recognize the
modal form of Godel's theorem:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Godel's theorem:
~Bf - ~B(~Bf),
which is equivalent to B(Bf - f) - Bf,
Just a little aside a la Descartes + Godel: (assume that think and
believe are synonymous and that f = you are)
B(Bf - f) - Bf can be
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 02:43 AM
Subject: RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 06:41 PM
Subject: RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 10
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 02:23 PM
Subject: RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday
Le 09-juin-05, à 23:00, Jonathan Colvin a écrit :
Bruno wrote:
I don't believe in observers, if by observer one means to assign
special ontological status to mental states over any other
arrangement
of matter.
I don't believe in matters, if by matters one means to
assign special
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 02:23 PM
Subject: RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday
simulation which computes every
possible sequence of steps that conclude in his successful (alive) crossing
of the bridge. Each possible sequence is tested once and only once.
In the following simulations each square represents a position or an
observer-moment if the person has no short term
Le 09-juin-05, à 01:19, Jonathan Colvin a écrit :
I don't believe in observers, if by observer one means to assign
special
ontological status to mental states over any other arrangement of
matter.
I don't believe in matters, if by matters one means to assign special
ontological status
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Colvin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 5:51 AM
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
Hal Finney wrote:
To apply Wei's method, first we need to get serious about what
is an OM
Jonathan Colvin writes:
There's a question begging to be asked, which is (predictably I suppose, for
a qualia-denyer such as myself), what makes you think there is such a thing
as an essence of an experience? I'd suggest there is no such thing as an
observer-moment. I'm happy with using
and distill this to the essence of the
experience. We come up with a pattern that represents that
observer moment. Any system which instantiates that pattern
genuinely creates an experience of that observer moment. This
pattern is something that can be specified, recorded and
written down in some
as an
observer-moment. I'm happy with using the concept as a tag of sorts when
discussing observer selection issues, but I think reifying it is likely a
mistake, and goes considerably beyond Strong AI into a full Cartesian
dualism. Is it generally accepted here on this list that a
substrate-independent thing
Jonathan Colvin writes:
There's a question begging to be asked, which is (predictably I suppose,
for
a qualia-denyer such as myself), what makes you think there is such a thing
as an essence of an experience? I'd suggest there is no such thing as
an
observer-moment. I'm happy with using
I think one should define an observer moment as the instantaneous
description of the human brain. I.e. the minimum amount of information you
need to simulate the brain of a observer. This description changes over time
due to interactions with the environment. Even if there were no interactions
Paddy Leahy wrote:
[quoting Hal Finney]
Here's how I attempted to define observer moment a few years ago:
Observer - A subsystem of the multiverse with qualities sufficiently
similar to those which are common among human beings that we consider
it meaningful that we might have been or might
-Original Message-
From: Hal Finney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 6:11 PM
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
Brent Meeker writes:
But the problem I see is that we don't know with certainity the
present
Hal Finney wrote:
Jonathan Colvin writes:
There's a question begging to be asked, which is (predictably I
suppose, for a qualia-denyer such as myself), what makes you think
there is such a thing as an essence of an experience? I'd suggest
there is no such thing as an observer-moment. I'm
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 12:36 PM
To: Brent Meeker
Cc: EverythingList list
Subject: Re: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
Le 06-juin-05, à 01:40, Brent Meeker a écrit :
What do you take
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
