Hal,
Your phrase ". . . constantly get bigger" reminds me of Mark
McCutcheon's "The Final Theory" where he revives a notion that gravity is
caused by the expansion of atoms.
Norman
----- Original Message -----
From: ""Hal Finney"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <everything-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...
Saibal Mitra writes:
> This is actualy another argument against QTI. There are only a finite
> number
> of different versions of observers. Suppose a 'subjective' time evolution
> on
> the set of all possible observers exists that is always well defined.
> Suppose we start with observer O1, and under time evolution it evolves to
> O2, which then evolves to O3 etc. Eventually an On will be mapped back to
> O1
> (if this never happened that would contradict the fact that there are only
> a
> finite number of O's). But mapping back to the initial state doesn't
> conserve memory. You can thus only subjectively experience yourself
> evolving
> for a finite amount of time.
Unless... you constantly get bigger! Then you could escape the
limitations of the Bekenstein bound.
Hal Finney
