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 worlds. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
