John M wrote: I'm really talking about "convertible to binary-representation" information states here. i.e. formal notionI find some inconsistencies in your post:qubitstring containing all of the possible information-states implied in such a long bitstring,...<possible, of course, to OUR knowledge (imagination). Anthropomorph thinking about the MW. of information i.e. a count and structuring of discrete differences. As such, the number of information-states representable in a qubitstring of length n is 2 ^ n. Those Uj's are not observable (unless we change the conventional meaning of that word.)Let Ui be an "internal-time-ordered" set of information-states s1,s2,...,s(now) comprising an observable universe.<How 'bout the Uis where 'time' has not evolved? Excluded? "Observe" as conventionally meant is defined with respect (at least indirectly) to notions of time. Any means where information can be conveyed from something outside of the observer SAS,Observable by what means? at the speed of light or lower, to the representing mechanism inside the observer. BY THE WAY. I'M NOT A PHYSICIST. Can someone who knows please clarify the answer to the rather basic question of whether something like the slit-experiment means anything (or DOES anything to the quantum phenomena of the photons) in the absence of a perceiving observer like ourselves. I'm fairly basically and profoundly ignorant on that score. i.e. can "the measuring experiment machine itself" without the person (or AI etc, or dog, say) to perceive the result, still cause a difference in "what happens" to the photons? The observable, classicized portion of the Ui observable universe was smaller in 1000, or at anyWe have a pretty narrow range in mind. Would you restrict the MWI to our cognitive inventory of 2004? Does that mean that the MW was "smaller" in 1000 (with the then epistemized contents of cognition)? previous time-within-itself than now, yes. Of course, to be precise, now actually means here-now, as these are inseparable in relativistic physics. Observed and verified physical laws of the Ui universe.... must be informationally consistent (not law violating) in conjunction...< what "law"? presumed omniscient? No problemoJust malicious remarks. I appreciate to try and to criticize. I have no better ones. EricJM |
- Re: Subjective measure? How does that work? Eric Hawthorne
- Re: Subjective measure? How does that work? Wei Dai
- Re: Subjective measure and turing machine termi... Eric Hawthorne
- Re: Subjective measure and turing machine t... Wei Dai
- Re: Subjective measure and turing machi... CMR
- Re: Subjective measure and turing ... Stephen Paul King
- Re: Subjective measure? How does that work? Jesse Mazer
- Re: Subjective measure? How does that work? Wei Dai
- Re: Subjective measure? How does that work? Eric Hawthorne
- Re: Subjective measure? How does that work? Jesse Mazer