to all: since I missed hundreds of posts in this list - now extremely proliferous and sweeping through "subjects" making backtracking a bore, do we have an agreement on WHAT do we call an EVENT? Also: To OBSERVE?
In my lay common sense I am inclined to call a step in a change an event, and the acknowledgment (absorption acceptance, incorporation) of information an observation - by anything, photon, universe or G. B. Shaw. In such semantics an OM may be a qualifier in events. Not the event proper. I know this is splittin hair, but we may fix what we are talking about. Just to keep our sanity. Best regards John Mikes --- Lee Corbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > >