Let me add a question to your insightful post. Could we consider the
"hardware: itself to be a simulation as well?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Aditya Varun Chadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lee Corbin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ""Hal Finney""
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 12:19 PM
Subject: OMs are events
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
an event in the observer's universe.
I don't think that Hal's idea of identifying brain patterns with OMs will
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
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
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
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).