Bruno wanted me to a bit clearer what I mean by the "equivalence
principle" I introduced. As I tried to explain, there are two
apparently different approaches that lead to a theory of the
Everything ensemble. Roughly speaking (the details vary), we can start
from a theory of all "worlds" or from a theory of all "experiences" or
"observer moments". Both ways have diffculties in explaining the
concepts of the complementary approach. My point is that---under few
conditions---the choice is free. For a problem of interest, we are
allowed to take the simplest approach, and we will not contradict
ourselves when employing the other one. Hence the term "equivalence".

I call it an equivalence "principle" because I think that it is of
fundamental significance; personally, I prefer to take the second
approach, i.e. to start from the ensemble of all possible observer
moments. But sometimes, it will be very convenient to consider an
ensemble of worlds; we can do this if the theory describing this
ensemble of worlds obeys the equivalence principle. When assuming the
ASSA or RSSA, the equivalence principle holds if the theory uses
Unification and predicts the emergence of every possible observer
moment in at least one world. For example, Russell's theory of the
Everything ensemble seems to obey the equivalence principle.

I want to give a highly speculative example for the use of the
equivalence principle. Let us have a look at the two most fundamental
theories of physics, quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity
(GR). Attempts in this list to derive QM started from knowledge states
of the observer, thus from concepts coming from the second approach,
the ensemble theory of observer moments. But I think that it is very
unlikely to get to the worldview of GR by considering the ensemble of
observer moments (if you want, I can try to explain this step in more
detail). The more promising way would be to consider the ensemble of

The equivalence principle states that we don't contradict ourselves by
taking the two apparently different roads at the same time. But the
reconciliation of QM and GR might be as difficult as explaining the
concept of observer moments starting from a description of worlds and
vice versa. Since the last step includes (explaining observer moments
out of the ensemble of worlds) a "neurological theory", we can
speculate whether the moment is near when our revolutionary view of
the interdependence of physics and neurology/psychology is needed to
find new physics.

Youness Ayaita
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