----- Original Message ----- From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 10:45 PM Subject: Re: Malcom/Standish white rabbit solution
> > On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 09:27:50PM +0100, Alastair Malcolm wrote: >> > >> > I use universe and history, or OM-sequence almost synonymously. Since >> > it was I who made the comment, it is what I meant. I think your method >> > can only work if the sequence of OMs observed by an observer is >> > describable as the outcome of some deterministic, or near >> > deterministic law. >> >> Yes, but it's not a local law: the point is that the minimum >> specification >> is whatever minimally specifies a normal OM (including what constitutes >> it >> etc). The presumption is that this will be something like a TOE, which >> will >> likely incorporate some compressed version of mwi, and so would lead to >> apparent indeterministic qm at the physical universe branch level >> (considered as OM sequences if you wish). >> > > I think you're still missing the point of the UDA. An ensemble like > the all strings ensemble (or UD*) necessarily predicts a predominence > of OMs of high measure that are the consistent continuation of the OM > we experience now. I don't use the UDA as far as I can see - for me, there is high-measure continuance of OM's physically compatible with the one I have now because I am in a physical universe, and this universe (quite likely as part of a multiverse) is one of the simplest compatible with the presence of SAS's (hence having high measure by the minimum specification argument). (Perhaps I shouldn't have let the following pass uncommented upon: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 12:33 AM > [...] Bruno would call the concept > "Concrete universe", and rereading your paper, it is not the same as > your "u-reality", since you use that to refer to ensembles such as the > bitstring ensemble, or all mathematics and so on, which are idealist > abstract things. To which I should have said something like: It is important to distinguish an entity (in this case u-reality) from what can represent it (bit string, mathematics etc). I would call u-reality 'ontological', rather than 'concrete'.) I have been OK continuing with this thread where it involves defending my own ideas, but as I have hinted several times I don't really feel justified in commenting on yours at least until I have taken another look at your book (with the help of your remarks in this thread - thanks for these). We have at least established that there are fundamental differences between the two approaches. Alastair > > My argument is that some required property of the observer steps in to > prevent these states from being experienced. Another way of looking at > it is to see that evolution is the only information generating process > in the Multiverse, and the evolution requires heritability, also known > as preservation of information. From this, the axioms of quantum > mechanics follow, which are sufficient (perhaps) to banish the white > rabbit. > > Anyway, there is a connection between this heritability requirement > and the robustness requirement I use in my White Rabbit treatment, > although I haven't connected the dots. > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Mathematics > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
