On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:
*" Is the "causes" word even necessary? Would it not be accurate to say that a change in information = a change in our description, unless you are assuming some sort of pluralistic 1st person view, i.e. from the point of view of many (a fixed set of observers): 'collapse' is nothing but a change in the information common to all that "causes' (or necessitates!) a change in the description of each individual to remain a viable member of the 'many'?* *Onward!* *Stephen"* ** Thanks, Stephen, for standing up against the verb 'causes'. In our limited views of the totality (the unlimited complexity of the wholeness) we can only search for factors *contributing* to changes we experience WITHIN the model of our knowledge. If we find such, we are tempted to call it *THE cause - *while many more (from the unknown) may also play in. *Information* is also a tricky term, maybe: knowledge of relations we * (lately?)* acquired in our topical model of yesterday's knowledge, but definitely also WITHIN our knowable model. (Please forgive me for using "yesterday's": nobody can think in terms of all the ongoing news of today). ** Best John M * * > > -----Original Message----- > >> From: Brent Meeker Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2011 3:09 PM To: >> everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING >> was Another TOE short paper >> > > On 3/6/2011 7:18 AM, 1Z wrote: >> >>> >>> On Mar 4, 7:10 pm, Brent Meeker<meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >>> >>> Collapse "appears" to instruments as well as people - that's why we can >>>> shared records of experiments and agree on them. I'm not sure what you >>>> mean by "account for" collapse. At least one interpretation of QM, >>>> advocated by Peres, Fuchs, and Omnes for example, is that the "collapse" >>>> is purely epistemological. All that changes is our knowledge or model >>>> of the state and QM merely predicts probabilities for this change. >>>> >>>> Such epistemological theories need to be carefully distinguished from >>> "consciousness causes >>> collapse" theories. >>> >>> > Right. Epistemological "collapse" is nothing but a change in >> information that causes us to change our description. >> > ** > > Is the "causes" word even necessary? Would it not be accurate to say that > a change in information = a change in our description, unless you are > assuming some sort of pluralistic 1st person view, i.e. from the point of > view of many (a fixed set of observers): 'collapse' is nothing but a change > in the information common to all that "causes' (or necessitates!) a change > in the description of each individual to remain a viable member of the > 'many'? > > Onward! > > Stephen > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
