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?


Reply via email to