At 01:28 PM 6/3/2005, Norman Samish wrote:

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

That's the excuse I use. RM

----- 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