On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Stephen Paul King
<stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
> Hi Brent and Everything List Members,
>     Let me start over and focus on the sequencing of OMs. I argue that the
> Schrodinger Equation does not work to generate a sequencing of Observer
> moments for multiple interacting observers because it assumes a physically
> unreal notion of time, the Newtonian Absolute time which is disallowed by
> the experimentally verified theory of general relativity. I will concede
> that I might be mistaken in my claim that the complex valuation of the
> observables (or, in the state vector formalism, the amplitudes) nor the
> hermiticity will generate a natural or well ordering that can be used to
> induced an a priori sequencing of the OMs, but I would like to see an
> argument that it does. Is there one? The paper by Ischam argues that there
> is not...
>     I see this problem of OM sequencing as separate from the ideas about
> clocks since clocks are a classical concept that depends, in a QM universe,
> on decoherence or something similar to overcome the effects of the HUP on
> its hands.
> Onward!
> Stephen

The subjective sequencing is independent of any real world sequence
that might occur. Today is Monday and I recall that yesterday was
Sunday. I assume that my brain generated Sunday's subjective
experiences first and then used them to generate Monday's. But this
need not necessarily be the case: it could be that that Sunday was
generated a century ago in real time, or not generated at all, and my
memories of it are false ones.

Stathis Papaioannou

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