Hi Stephen

Stephen Paul King wrote:

> Dear George,
> George Levy wrote:
> > Stephen Paul King wrote:
> 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 
> http://www.kitada.com/time_III.html )

hmmm... .. make electrons and human equivalent as far as their observer status are 
concerned..and in so
doing demote the word "observer" to nothing.... that would be fine if we restrict our 
discussion to third
person perspective... but we don't..... first person perspective admit some 
differences which are function
of the nature of consciousness of the observer...

> > > [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. :-(
> [SPK]
>     Were can I find it? Could you give me an exact URL?

Not yet... working on it. By any chance do you have a good relationsip with publishers 
given your very
interesting name?

> >  [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?....
> [SPK]
>     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?

I do not believe that logical concatenation from apriori and a posteriori implies or 
require temporal flow.
Imagine a computer program listing. All the relationships are there, yet the whole 
thing is on paper. A
logical graph, similarly requires no temporal flow. It is just there.

> > [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 constraint?
> > > (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)
> [SPK]
>     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.

I have never been able to get a rigorous explanation of the diverse Anthropic 
Principles. Just to say that
the world is such because carbon life is here, or life is here, or  humanity is here, 
is fuzzy. How about
the world is such because the Canadians are here, or the Yanomamo of central America? 
In my mind the only
way to resolve this issue is to go all the way to the "I." However, since I am not a 
solipsist, I must admit
to several "I's." The result, therefore, is a relativistic perception of the world in 
which each "I" has his
own perception. I don't know if other people use the Anthropic Principle in this way.

> > [SPK]
> > > I think that we should consider the rule "All is allowed that is not Forbidden" 
> > > 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.
> [SPK]
>     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.

Are you saying that taking "I" as a logical source for the anthropic causal chain is a 
problem? It is the
only rational starting point.

> 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.

Oops!.. And how is a whole universe created?

> What you call the "one Universe" is what I
> call the Totality. Each observer has a "universe" as its percept.

Let's say that this "universe" is simply a subset of the Plenitude or of the Totality 
that comes about as
the result in the limitations in the perceptual senses and mental capabilities of the 
observer. The
formation of this subset is just an artifact of our consciousness. It is not an active 
event caused by an

> > > [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.
> [SPK]
>     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:
> http://tph.tuwien.ac.at/~svozil/cgi-bin/out.cgi?manu=paradox  ) 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: http://www.kitada.com/time_VI.html

Saibal wrote:

> George Levy wrote:
> Even with the null set I have my doubt. Why not use the Not(null set)
..... which is the plenitude eh???  :-)

> How do you avoid Russel's paradox?

The Plenitude is not a set.... so strictly speaking the operation Not(null set) cannot 
be performed using
the set operator "Not".... The fact that the result of the operation does not fall 
into the domain of sets
indicates incompleteness of the sets just like taking the square root of a negative 
number indicates
incompleteness of the reals. The solution for the square root problem is to invent 
imaginary numbers and to
continue doing square roots. I am not sure what the solution for the sets would be.... 
invent an object of
the class Not(null set)???
I guess this would lead to logical contradictions.....The fact is that the plenitude 
in its entirety does
include contradictions...What restores rationality is the presence of 
consciousness....it is a rational
locus  in the plenitude, imposed by the anthropic principle....


Reply via email to