(Sorry for the convoluted editing: it comes from
Russell's format as
attachment only, without strraight readability
as an e-mail)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <everything-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 6:50
PM
Subject: Re: Belief
Statements
Dear Russell,
since you e-mail without words
(only an attachment) I copy your text here to give my reply to it - interspaced,
if you don't mind :
--------------------------------------
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 04:08:15PM -0500,
John M wrote:
> > At 07:40 PM 1/9/2005, you wrote:
> > At 07:40 PM 1/9/2005, you wrote:
(Russell Standish):
> > >A compromise on these two views
occurs through my assumption of "Time" being a necessary property of
bserverhood. Sure atemporal worlds exist, but there's nobody in them to
observe them. Similarly, Hal Ruhl's dynamic process is simply the process of
observation.
> > > Cheers (R.St.)<<<
>>
>> Russell seems to restrict 'observerhood' to timed worlds (maybe: humans?) ("there's nobody in them to observe them").
> > > Cheers (R.St.)<<<
>>
>> Russell seems to restrict 'observerhood' to timed worlds (maybe: humans?) ("there's nobody in them to observe them").
>>I leave 'observation' open to ANY
absorption of information, in >>'our' sense or otherwise. I don't 'deny'
existence to formats we >>have no idea about. We just don't know. (JM
)
*
> ( R St now )
:
It is an assumption (or perhaps postulate: the
Time postulate). It is
amenable to debate, just as Euclid's axioms are. I offer the following points in its favour:
amenable to debate, just as Euclid's axioms are. I offer the following points in its favour:
1) Observation is the process of creating
information, by
distinguishing differences between things (aka bits).
distinguishing differences between things (aka bits).
JM: IMO observation does
NOT CREATE information, it collects it. Information is the acknowledged
difference and I agree with point 2: there must be at least 1 mutual dimension
for a comparison (to have an acknowledgeable difference) aka
information.
Two dimensionally unconnected 'facts' do not constitute a difference, nor
provide information on the two together. Desultory knowledge is irrelevant in
this case.
(Bits: I may not
understand it right, but IMO a 'bit' does not disclose a meaning - it is
applicable in any context applied.
So I would reverse
Wheeler's 'it from bit' into 'bit from it'. We do not 'create' the world
according to the computer bits - but in the contrary, the bits represent (stand
for) the "its".)
2) To have a difference, obviously requires at
least one dimension.
3) To compare two different entities requires
that the properties of
the two entities be brought together (inside the observer's
"mind"). Thus the one required dimension must be "timelike", with the observer passing from point to point.
the two entities be brought together (inside the observer's
"mind"). Thus the one required dimension must be "timelike", with the observer passing from point to point.
JM: I don't see the
conclusion about "timelike": observation can compare e.g. overlapping
pictures atemporarily, in one.
But this, again, is the
reflection of human habits (logic and capabilities).
If we consider
'information' as I propose in generalization:
acknowledged
difference, not restricted how and by what acknowledged, "our" time
concept does not enter the picture.
4) For those who believe in Computationalism,
the Turing model of
computation implicitly requires this Time postulate.
computation implicitly requires this Time postulate.
JM: I don't. It is a human
representational way of OUR world model. Even if we try to 'apply' it to "other"
worlds.
5) It appears to be a necessary ingredient to
obtain Quantum Mechanics from first principles (see my "Why Occams Razor"
paper)
JM: ditto, see my remark
to #4
None of this is a proof. However, it is very
persuasive and
general. For someone to claim that this postulate is invalid, they
would probably need to show a model of observation that invalidates it, just as Gauss showed Euclid's 5th axiom was not necessary by showing a consistent geometry in which he axiom was invalid. And that would be a very interesting development.
general. For someone to claim that this postulate is invalid, they
would probably need to show a model of observation that invalidates it, just as Gauss showed Euclid's 5th axiom was not necessary by showing a consistent geometry in which he axiom was invalid. And that would be a very interesting development.
JM: Nobody has
to show an unproven idea as invalid. The idea must be verified first for
argumentation. Furthermore: it is nice to show an alternative, however an
unlikely idea can be deemed unlikely without providing an alternative.
Ideas are 'persuasive'
within the belief system they fit into. Comp and QM are "general" chapters
within the (limited) model we have in contemporary science about THIS world. Not
valid in an openminded multiverse of no restrictions.
Cheers
Russell
Standish
Re-Cheers
John
Mikes