Saibal writes > 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.
Is there a possible confusion here on the one hand between "event" as a witnessed event by extensive systems like observers, and on the other hand event as used in, say, spacetime physics? ("Observers" are *usually* taken to be rather complex systems.) One interpretation of what Aditya was saying (and which I know Stephen sometimes entertains) is that every film in a camera, or even anything whatsoever on which a record can be made could be thought of as an observer. That is---perhaps---anything that can be influenced at all. So I'm not sure what you mean by "observer". Could you put some limits on it? Lee