I agree with the notion of OMs as events in some suitably chosen space. Observers are defined by the programs that generate them. If we identify universes with programs then observers are just embedded universes. An observer moment is just a qualia experienced by the observer, which is just an event in the observer's universe.

I don't think that Hal's idea of identifying brain patterns with OMs will be successful. The brain is just the hardware that runs a program (the observer). If I run a simulation of our solar system on a computer, then the relevant events are e.g. that Jupiter is in such and such a position. This is associated with the state of the transistors of the computer running the program. But that same pattern could arise in a completely different calculation. You would have to extract exactly what program is running on the machine to be able to define OMs like that. To do that you need to feed the program with different kinds of input and study the output, otherwise you'll fall prey to the famous ''clock paradox'' (you can map the time evolution of a clock to that of any object, including brains). Saibal ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aditya Varun Chadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lee Corbin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <everything-list@eskimo.com> Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 08:46 AM Subject: Re: What We Can Know About the World > [RS] > On 7/31/05, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 12:25:48PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > > > > This is not to say that progress is impossible. Consider an idea > > > like Aditya has: what is the real difference between an event > > > and an observer-moment? In trying to answer that question, many > > > of us may learn something (at least for our own purposes). > > > > > > > Err, an event is a particular set of coordinates (t,x,y,z) in 4D > > spacetime. This is how it is used in GR, anyway. > > > > An observer moment is a set of constraints, or equivalently > > information known about the world (obviously at a moment of time). It > > corresponds the the "state" vector \psi of quantum mechanics. > > > > Perhaps you have different definitions of these terms, but it seems > > like chalk and cheese to me. > > > > Lets not constrain an "event" to mean something only in 4-space. Take > any N-Space and you can define it in terms of a set of N-dim. events. > Ofcourse I agree with your definition, am just making it scale over > dimensions. > > Now consider an "observer moment" to be exactly what you are defining > it to be: information KNOWN about the world at a moment of time. The > "coming to know" of any information corresponds to an "event". Thus an > "observer moment" is well-defined if and only if "event" is defined. > In other words, an Observer-Moment exists iff it's corresponding > "coming to know" event exists for "some" observer. In terms of light > cones, OMs are the Events at and "after" the crossing over of light > cones. > > I think the distinction is not a qualitative one between the two, only > those events which interfere with the set of events "observable" by > "us" (who are also just sets of events) correspond to > "observer-moments" in "our universe". So the set of OMs is simply a > subset of the set of all events. > > refer to my previous mail about the multiverse as a partition with > equivalence classes which are maximal sets of connected "observer > moments", in other words, maximal sets of "mutually interfering > events". visualize this as connected components of a graph. > > Defining entities in more than one different sets of words does not > rule out their qualitative identity. Every Observer-Moment is an > event. Every event is an Observer-Moment in some universe. > > -- > Aditya Varun Chadha > adichad AT gmail.com > http://www.adichad.com >