Russell submits the following as clarifications: > 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 [the observer moment] corresponds the the "state" vector \psi > of quantum mechanics.
and Stephen inquires > Hi Russell, > A possibly related question. Given your definition of events and OMs, > does it not seem that they complement each other, assuming that events have > more quatities associated, such as 4-momentum-energy? Well, Russell did also say that OMs and events seemed to him about as alike as chalk and cheese. It's starting to look that way: I quote Hal: Calling them [causal patterns] "observer moments" seems to be a bit of a stretch, given the enormous number of orders of magnitude difference between what we would normally recognize as a conscious OM and one of these trivial ones [e.g. a 302-neuron nematode OM]. So, alas, it seems that the firmly established meanings of "event" and "observer moment" can't really be said to be at all the same thing. (Folks like Russell and Hal have been using the term "OM" for years and years, and "event" has a pretty standard meaning in physics.) Observer moments have to do with something conscious (and, evidently, pretty complex). And of course, as Hal wrote later on, consciousness exists on a gray scale. Lee P.S. In normal physics an event, as Russell says, is associated with coordinates. Nonetheless I, for one, had always supposed that indeed something was happening there, e.g., a photon was emitted. Well, in familiar physics we may also say that in the usual three-space there is quantum activity at each point. This, at least for me, makes the terms a little more meaningful.