John M wrote:
I 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.
I'm really talking about "convertible to binary-representation" information states here. i.e. formal notion
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.

 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?
Those Uj's are not observable (unless we change the conventional meaning of that word.)
"Observe" as conventionally meant is defined with respect (at least indirectly) to notions
of time.
Observable by what means? 
Any means where information can be conveyed from something outside of the observer SAS,
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?

We 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)?

The observable, classicized portion of the Ui observable universe was smaller in 1000, or at any
previous time-within-itself than now, yes. Of course, to be precise, now actually means here-now,
as these are inseparable in relativistic physics.

... must be informationally consistent (not law violating) in conjunction
what "law"? presumed omniscient?
Observed and verified physical laws of the Ui universe.
Just malicious remarks. I appreciate to try and to criticize.
I have no better ones.

No problemo

Reply via email to