On 4/28/2011 2:20 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,
But does this only make the problem worse? The quantity of information that would have to be specified in analogue recordings would be at least some power greater than the information necessary to specify the finite bit digital version! I would like to be wrong on this, but ISTM that the Newtonian picture of the universe demands infinite computational resources to implement the Laplace Demon. I am trying to make sense of the Bekenstein bound <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound> and an idea in resent discussion by David Deutsch in his On Optimism speech – a speech that I wish all persons would watch and comprehend. I do overthink things. My lovely and brilliant wife often points this out to me. Please allow me to ask another question. Is the notion of an “observer moment” corresponding to “the smallest possible conscious experience” related to Bruno’s concept of substitution level? ISTM that both act like the idea of a coarse graining on an ensemble that is used to define the entropy of a system in that all of the members of the ensemble that are indistinguishable from a macroscopic point of view. Related to this see: http://dare.uva.nl/document/134446

What book is this?


and http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.3972 . In our search to define a generic non-anthropocentric notion of an observer, I think that this notion of a lower bound on observable differences may help us see a better outline of the idea that we are looking for.

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to