Dear George,
Interleaving.

##
Advertising

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Levy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Everything List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:58 PM
Subject: Re: are we in a simulation?
> Hi Stephen,
>
>
>
> Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> > Dear Friends,
> >
> > Does computational complexity (such as NP-Completeness, etc.)
> > and computational "power" requirements factor into the idea of
> > simulated worlds?
> >
> >
>
> It may. Also important is the issue that Tegmark raised in the
> Scientific American article about the ordering of an infinite set. The
> probability of the occurence of an element of any subset (say the even
> numbers) can be altered depending on how the element of the set (say the
> natural numbers) are ordered.
[SPK]
Is this related to what D. Deutsch mentions regarding the "measure on
the ensemble" in his paper "It From Qubit"? It might also be related to the
Burali-Forti paradox?
>From http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~cebrown/notes/vonHeijenoort.html :
"The Burali-Forti paradox deals with the "greatest ordinal"--which is
obtained by assuming the set of ordinals is well-ordered [and, of course,
that it is a set!]--which must be a member of the set of ordinals and
simultaneously greater than any ordinal in the set."
>
> So if we assume that the multiworlds are an infinite set, to compute the
> probability of any event we need to know how the multiwords are ordered.
> I conjecture that the ordering should be anthropy related.
>
[SPK]
Do you mean "entropy"?
> Let's consider a double slit diffraction experiment. The multiworlds are
> ordered according to the output diffraction pattern. Since the phases
> add up to produce this pattern, it seems that the process is linear,
> (thus simplifying computation) so computational complexity and
> computational power do seem to be of relevance.
>
> George.
[SPK]
I am still struggling with my intuitions regarding how to think of the
liner superposition of QM states as "multiple worlds". For one thing,
nowhere does there seem to be a place to embed the notion of an observer
other than the notion of the observable itself, but we don't have a formal
(or even informal!) way of defining the idea of a relation between and
"observer" and observables. Do you have any ideas?
Kindest regards,
Stephen