Dear George,

George Levy wrote:

> Stephen Paul King wrote:
> >  I am considering the idea that each
> > observer (consciousness point) has its own set of a priori probable observations, 
>it is when we
> > introduce the possibility of communication between observers that these sets 
> >
> [GL]
> I hope you are  not suggesting that observers have a special status and that 
>communication with an
> "observer" is qualitatively different with communication with an inanimate object.


    Umm, no! I am suggesting that *all* "objects" are either an observer or a part of 
an observer. I am
attacking the anthrocentrist definition of "observer." I am suggesting that any 
"object" that can have a
QM wave function associated with it *is an observer*, this would apply to an electron, 
a human, a
galaxy, etc. I am taking the work of Prof. Hitoshi Kitada to its logical conclusion 
(See: )

> > > [GL]
> > > (i.e., Loosely speaking,  if each transition has infinite measure, the only way 
>to compare
> > > two transitions is to take the limit of their ratios.)  Hence, relatively to the 
> > > his own measure can always be assumed to be one. This remains true as long as 
>the number of,
> > > or magnitude of the adversities in his environment remains of a lower 
>cardinality than his
> > > own measure. When the adversities are too severe then his consciousness stops 
> > > propagating (being linked) to those very adverse states. It's kind of a 
> > > Principle.
> >
> > [SPK]
> >
> >     That is interesting! Do you have more information on that?
> >
> [GL]
> It's in the book I wrote..... As I have already  mentioned in the other post.  I did 
>not go very far
> along the formal route. Unfortunaltely it's more English than Math. :-(


    Were can I find it? Could you give me an exact URL?

>  [SPK]
> > > > I am exploring the idea that communication
> > > > between observers plays an important role in restricting and/or distinguishing 
>the two.
> > > > I hope that you understand this difference between a priori and a posteriori 
>that I am
> > > > writing about. ;-)
> > > [GL]
> > > I don't understand. In the constext of Markov chain, all the information is 
>contained in the
> > > current states.
> >
> >    [SPK]
> >
> >     Right, but consider how it is that "current states" are concatenated (strung 
> > especially when you have to consider concurrency issues.
> hmmmmm. I don't know.... concatenation implies sequence and therefore seems to 
>smuggle the answer
> in. Is concatenation necessary?....


    Yes, if we are going to consider logical implication chaining and seek to explain 
the appearance of
temporal "flow" we must include concatenation. If we throw out the possibility of 
partial orderings what
do we have left?

> [GL]
> > > Kind of. They are connected by a web-like set of allowed logical transitions.
> >
> > [SPK]
> >
> >     I agree. But could you get into detail on the nature of "allowed"? What is the 
> > (I think that all that is needed is the weak anthropic principle but I could be 
> > something.)
> [GL]
> The constraint is the "I" (Anthropic principle)


    Ok, but I think that the self-reference implicit in "I" is not necessary. That is 
the "strong"
anthropic principle. Let's just stick to a "very weak" version, were the observers are 
not necessarily
carbon based.

> [SPK]
> > I think that we should consider the rule "All is allowed that is not Forbidden" (by
> > logical contradiction) instead of the usual notion " All is forbidden that is not 
>allowed" (by
> > prespecification, e.g. a priori algorithms) Peter Wegner has done a lot of 
>research on this
> > issue:
> >
> [GL]
> I agree fully with the above. The plenitude provides the principle of "All is 
>allowed" and the
> anthropic principle the restriction   imposed by ***your own*** existence "that is 
>not forbidden."
> Thus each "I" is an initial boundary condition for an anthropic causal chain. When 
>the anthropic
> principle is taken back all the way to its source, the "I", the result is a 
>relativistic perception
> of the plenitude by each "I." Thus there is only one universe... the plenitude. The 
>only difference
> is our perception of it.


    The problem that I have with that is that we can run into severe problems with the 
notion of a
"source". It looks to me that your statement here contradict your earlier statement 
that "There is no
"previous" in the sense of previous time, only in terms of logical antecedent. In 
addition, the
conscious points are multiply connected and the connections are a function of the 
points themselves. In
other words each point could have several priors and several successors." I t would 
make more sense if
the "initial boundary condition" were given within each and every instantiation of an 
observation, e.g.
every time an observation is made a new universe is created. What you call the "one 
Universe" is what I
call the Totality. Each observer has a "universe" as its percept.

> [SPK]
> > > >
> > > >     Ok, would we agree that the anthropic principle (weak?) is true in the 
>sense that
> > > > any observer will have first person perspectives (experiences) that have a 
> > > > of 1 if and only if such are consistent with its existence. Also, if you are 
>going to
> > > > say that consciousness is a static phenomenon then could you explain how the 
> > > > of change comes about?
> > > [GL]
> > > In the same way a derivative describes movement while being itself static.The 
>logical links
> > > would have to contain directionality information.
> >
> > [SPK]
> >
> >     Sure, I agree in principle with that but it is easy to see that something 
>somehow IS
> > changing.
> [GL]
> hmmmm... phase space for example provides the information of movement while being 
> static....To say that the plenitude itself is changing leads to a paradox....The 
>illusion of change
> is embedded in each conscious point and is a result of the directional logical links 
>which depend
> themselves on the type of consciousness we have.


    Right, right! This is a tricky idea! The Totality is "paradoxical" for it is 
Complete (in the
Goedelian sense) and is this equal to it representation. Paradox is necessarily 
problematic! (See:  ) While there is no 
unique factorization
of the Totality into "parts" it is decomposable into "Incomplete" subsets. Prof. 
Kitada has shown how
this works and how time can be derived there from:

> George

Kindest regards,


Reply via email to