Of course, we all live in the same universe in the sense that we are 
all simulated by brains that exist in this universe (described 
approximately by the Standard Model and General Relativity). The 
problem is how to define the observer moments rigorously at least in 
principle. It is undeniable that we experience a the world that our 
brains are simulating and not the real world. We experience the real 
world only indirectly.

If you touch a hot object and burn your finger then you experiencing 
the pain is really an event that happens in the virtual world simulated 
by your brain. Your brain simply uses the results of the simulation to 
compute what action to take in the real world (and the simulation will 
then be updated accordingly). The burning sensation exists only in the 
simulated world, not in the real world. Of course, you can infer that 
the object must have been hot.

So, it seems to be more sensible to me to say that an observer moment 
is itself an entire universe (= program) in some state. This looks 
equivalent to specifying the exact state a brain is in, but the brain 
contains more information than is accessible to the observer. We really 
have to extract the program the brain is running from the brain and use 
that to define OMs, otherwise an OM becomes an inherently ambiguous 
concept (e.g. where does the brain end, do the nerves in my feet also 
count? etc. etc.).

One can simply define an observer as some program and look at the 
entire multiverse to seek out these programs that are in such and such 
state. Then one adds up all the absolute measures to obtain the total 
probability that the program is experiencing that state.

One would then expect that it is likely that a program defining a human 
observer is simulated by a brain in a universe described by the 
Standard Model.

citeren Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Saibal Mitra wrote:
>> 1) looks better because there is no unambiguous definition of "next".
>> However, I don't understand the "shared by everyone" part. Different
>> persons are different programs who cannot exactly represent the
>> "observer moment" of me.
>> As I see it, an observer moment is a snapshot of the universe taken by
>> my brain. The brain simulates a virtual world based on information from
>> the real world. We don't really experience the real world, we just
>> experience this simulated world. Observer moments for observers should
>> refer to the physical states of the virtual world they live in. Since
>> different observers live in different universes which have different
>> laws of physics, these physical states (= qualia) cannot be compared to
>> each other.
> How do you know they live in different universes?  The great 
> agreement among observers is what leads us to believe in an objective 
> world.  It appears that it is more economical (both ontologically and 
> algorithmically) to explain the agreement by supposing there is an 
> objective world as described by physics.  In which case the observer 
> moments are derivative from the objective world - that's what makes 
> it a more efficient hypothesis.
> Brent Meeker
> >

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to