----- Original Message -----
From: Fritz Griffith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > As I said, the measure problems are the same whether you use MW or my
> > > single observer moment theory.
> >
> >If by 'measure problem' it is meant that the WAP on its own predicts
'chaos
> >to the brink' (because our measure should be highest for chaotic
universes
> > - the WR problem), then the measure problem is potentially solvable for
AUH
> >(All universes hypotheses), but not for your single observer moment
theory
> >(without an additional assumption, as mentioned in my earlier post). The
> >underlying reason for this is that any minimum information specification
> >that includes our universe (say a physicist's TOE) can be considered as
> >simpler than a (near) *explicit* specification of a single observer
moment,
> >with all the attendent complication of a mechanism that can support any
> >possible human memory (not to mention thought, emotion, creativity and
> >so on). Again, see my web site or Russell's Ockham paper for more
details.

> But as I've already mentioned before, there is not just one explicit
> observer moment.  You seem to assume that I take a Copenhagen-style
approach
> to my theory, but in reality I take a more MW approach.  I believe that
> all possible observer moments exist in the plentitude, and therefore the
> equation that describes them could be just as simple, even the same, as
> those that could describe the universe with an AUH theory.

I was always assuming that you were referring to a plenitude, I was just
trying to keep things simple by mentioning only one. A plenitude of *only*
observer moments would have much the same problems as I mentioned for one,
with some compression available for the whole range of possible SAS (say
conscious) memories. More likely, I would guess, is that you are thinking in
terms of a plenitude *including* all possible observer moments. If the
equation describing this plenitude is the same as an AUH theory, I can't see
how your single observer moment theory differs from ordinary physics
(extended as necessary to encompass other universes). If the equation is
different (the extra assumption I have referred to earlier), then not only
would some justification be needed for why a different physics generates the
illusion of memories of our physics in action, but also how this new physics
could be simpler than conventional TOE physics, bearing in mind it has to
support (at least) observer moments, with all their complexity.

Alastair



Reply via email to