George, great. - Absolute measures?
So you want to supersede the Archimede-Einstein wisdom ('gimme a fixed
point"...to: total relativity) - which is OK with me. I like the way you
approach questions (big deal for you<G>).
Main topic: Reverse Hubble? do we go towards a ;Big Bang', which is indeed
a slow fade-out into a zero-point? (a slow No-Bang, indeed).
I had questions about that expansionary idea, ingenious as it was. Brent did
not like my skepticism, but I am no physicist and can take a physicist-put
I was missing the 'objective' (forgive me for this adjective) - all
encompassing study to "exclude" ALL other possibilities for a redshift. (a
topical impossibility). I had two little questions (never got answers):
1. do the 'atomic measures' (hypothetical as they may be) like distance
"between" nucleus and electrons (calculational fairytale) also expand? or
2. does the physical story of today's intrinsic measures stay put and only
the biggies expand?
In the first case nothing really happens, we just believe in a narrative.
So as much as I applaud your shrinking idea, it is still part of the
But it is a great idea. Thanks.
On 10/31/07, George Levy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could we relate the expansion of the universe to the decrease in
> measure of a given observer? High measure corresponds to a small
> universe and conversely, low measure to a large one. For the observer
> the decrease in his measure would be caused by all the possible mode of
> decay of all the nuclear particles necessary for his consciousness.
> Corresponding to this decrease, the radius of the observable universe
> increases to make the universe less likely.
> This would provide an experimental way to measure absolute measure.
> I am not a proponent of ASSA, rather I believe in RSSA and in a
> cosmological principle for measure: that measure is independent of when
> or where the observer makes an observation. However, I thought that
> tying cosmic expansion to measure may be an interesting avenue of inquiry.
> George Levy
> Rolf Nelson wrote:
> >(Warning: This post assumes an familiarity with UD+ASSA and with the
> >cosmological Measure Problem.)
> >Observational Consequences:
> >1. Provides a possible explanation for the "Measure Problem" of why we
> >shouldn't be "extremely surprised" to find we live in a lawful
> >universe, rather than an extremely chaotic universe, or a homogeneous
> >cloud of gas.
> >2. May help solve the Doomsday Argument in a finite universe, since
> >you probably have at least a little more "measure" than a typical
> >specific individual in the middle of a Galactic Empire, since you are
> >"easier to find" with a small search algorithm than someone surrounded
> >by enormous numbers of people.
> >3. For similar reasons, may help solve a variant of the Doomsday
> >Argument where the universe is infinite. This variant DA asks, "if
> >there's currently a Galactic Empire 10000 Hubble Volumes away with an
> >immensely large number of people, why wasn't I born there instead of
> >4. May help solve the Simulation Argument, again because a search
> >algorithm to find a particular simulation among all the adjacent
> >computations in a Galactic Empire is longer (and therefore, by UD
> >+ASSA, has less measure) than a search algorithm to find you.
> >5. In basic UD+ASSA (on a typical Turing Machine), there is a probably
> >a strict linear ordering corresponding to when the events at each
> >point in spacetime were calculated; I would argue that we should
> >expect to see evidence of this in our observations if basic UD+ASSA is
> >true. However, we do not see any total ordering in the physical
> >Universe; quite the reverse: we see a homogeneous, isotropic Universe.
> >This is evidence (but not proof) that either UD+ASSA is completely
> >wrong, or that if UD+ASSA is true, then it's run on something other
> >than a typical linear Turing Machine. (However, if you still want use
> >a different machine to solve the "Measure Problem", then feel free,
> >but you first need to show that your non-Turing-machine variant still
> >solves the "Measure Problem.")
> >Decision Theory Consequences (Including Moral Consequences):
> >Every decision algorithm that I've ever seen is prey to paradoxes
> >where the decision theory either crashes (fails to produce a
> >decision), or requires an agent to do things that are bizarre, self-
> >destructive, and evil. (If you like, substitute 'counter-intuitive'
> >for 'bizarre, self-destructive, and evil.') For example: UD+ASSA,
> >"Accepting the Simulation Argument", Utilitarianism without
> >discounting, and Utilitarianism with time and space discounting all
> >have places where they seem to fail.
> >UD+ASSA, like the Simulation Argument, has the following additional
> >problem: while some forms of Utilitarianism may only fail in
> >hypothetical future situations (by which point maybe we'll have come
> >up with a better theory), UD+ASSA seems to fail *right here and now*.
> >That is, UD+ASSA, like the Simulation Argument, seems to call on you
> >to do bizarre, self-destructive, and evil things today. An example
> >that Yudowsky gave: you might spend resources on constructing a unique
> >arrow pointing at yourself, in order to increase your measure by
> >making it easier for a search algorithm to find you.
> >Of course, I could solve the problem by deciding that I'd rather be
> >self-destructive and evil than be inconsistent; then I could consider
> >adopting UD+ASSA as a philosophy. But I think I'll pass on that
> >option. :-)
> >So, more work would have to be done the morality of UD+ASSA before any
> >variant of UD+ASSA can becomes a realistically palatable part of a
> >moral philosophy.
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