I agree, except that there is no 'transition' from one OM to the next. What is it that 'transits' ? ----- Original Message ----- From: George Levy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 8:03 PM Subject: Re: on formally describable universes and measures
> > > Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 03-Mar-01, George Levy wrote: > > > > > I do not view these so called "parallel" universes as *separate*. It's > > > really one single multiverse and the wave function exists in the > > > multiverse.... > > > > How can this multiverse have a single wave function when it is supposed > > to have different physical laws in it's different constituent > > universes? This seems to be just poetry, in which the meaning of words > > is considered infinitely malleable. > > > > Brent Meeker > > Great comment which shows why you and others do not understand the full > implications of first and third persons perspectives. There is no single > set of physical laws that spans the whole plenitude. In fact, the plenitude > includes all possible physical laws. To be more precise, physical laws are > first person phenomenons that are defined by the characteristics of each > conscious point (observer moment, or "I") Thus, consciousness and physical > laws emerge together, and are reflections of each other. They occupies the > same logical domain and are bounded by the same limits. A transition from > one conscious point (observer moment) to the next must be logical at the > conscious level and simultaneously at the physical law level. Consciousness > exists because of the physical laws (causality), and the physical laws exist > because of consciousness (anthropy). This is why the world makes sense and > also why we don't see white rabbits. > > Propagation of the wave function is the logical linkage between conscious > points. It appears to obey "universal physical laws" only because third > person perspective is an illusion supported by the fact that different > observers share the same logical/physical reference frame. > > I am not sure what the "orthodox" MWI but I know there are many variants. My > opinion on this matter is probably one of the most extreme in this group. > But, once you start travelling along the MWI path, you've got to go all the > way. I believe that it is the only logical approach and is unavoidable. > > George > >
