On Wed, 18 May 2005, Hal Finney wrote:

Does anybody believe that this is consistent with the many-worlds
interpretation of QM?

First, welcome to the list.



However, particularly as we look to larger ensembles than just the MWI,
it becomes attractive to define observers and observer-moments based
solely on their internal information.

I wondered if that's what was meant... hence the last para of my message, and my comments in my follow-up to Quentin Anciaux. But you explain it better (in a bit I snipped!).

Mind you, I don't understand why you find your definition "attractive". It would be pretty confusing for physicists to say "there's only one electron", even though they all are absolutely identical.

And also, as I mentioned to Quentin, if you are going for such a radical
first-person perspective, an OM really *has* no outside so it is a bit misleading to talk of "pasts" at all.


Reply via email to