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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to