----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Russell Standish" <[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


> 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 

Reply via email to