On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:07 PM, rmiller <rmil...@legis.com> wrote:

>  To me, the Many-Minds interpretation requires significant changes in
> frames of reference.  Suppose you view a particular world out of many as a
> 2-dimensional surface.  Layers of surfaces comprise the local environment of
> a particular section of Many Worlds.  Now think of a behavior pattern as a
> set of elements and interactions between elements.  Each of the many-worlds
> is associated with a “snapshot” of your individual behavior pattern unique
> to that world.  But suppose there are similarities between your behavior
> patterns in worlds A B and C—that set of similar configurations forms what
> can be described as a fibre bundle through multiple surfaces.  If so, this
> may suggest that at some level consciousness experiences more than one world
> “surface” at a time.   If the ratio of interactions to elements decreases
> (you enter a darkened room) then the similarities in the behavior system
> config should result in an increase in the “depth” of the many world
> surfaces.  Increase the ratio of interactions to elements and the complexity
> of your behavior set increases—linking you to a particular world “surface.”
>  It would seem that, like relativity, the frame of reference is not
> absolute—and in fact changes as rapidly as perception changes.   From others
> inhabiting the single world surface, it would appear that the behavior
> system is changing without cause; but if we could somehow view the entire
> group of world surfaces associated with the core group of a particular
> behavioral system configuration, then we would be more likely to understand
> the “reasons” for the behavior.  Unfortunately, any single nervous system
> has any number of configurations associated with multiple world layers---and
> anyone attempting to perceive it has their own particular sets of
> configurations (and world layers.)  The best we can do is arrive at a
> general consensus of what is perceived and agree to label that the local
> shared reality.  The Copenhagen theorists infamously suggested that nothing
> exists unless it is perceived (measured)—and as far as it goes, that would
> be absolutely true.  One cannot perceive what doesn’t exist in that world
> layer.  But if the perception process naturally involved multiple world
> layers, then the Copenhagen Interpretation would be true, but trivially so
> (as Hawking said about Many Worlds.)   David Deutsch claims we all inhabit
> multiple worlds, but can’t communicate between the worlds.  I think Many
> Minds, Fibre Bundle topology, and Neodissociationist (Hilgardian) psychology
> will prove him wrong.
> RM
I am nearly done reading the Fabric of Reality.  One thing which isn't clear
to me after reading it is how computation or consciousness work if we are
all simply unconnected snapshots, without any implicit ordering or
connections between any two snapshots, or without the flow of information or
causal relationships between such snapshots.  The concept of objective
snapshots of universes also seems to conflict with the spacetime concept in
relativity, which he says is only useful as an approximation.  Has this been
established or is it a theory of Deutsch's?


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to