On 16 May 2011, at 16:13, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Stathis,
-----Original Message----- From: Stathis Papaioannou
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 9:08 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
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
--
[SPK]
I was trying to be sure that I took that involves the possibility
that the OMs are computationally disjoint into account. This covers
your example, I think...
I am wondering how they are "strung together", to use the analogy
of putting beads on a string. My point is that we cannot appeal to a
separate "dimension of time" to act as the sequencer of the OMs. So
how do they get sequenced? How does the information (if I am allowed
that term) of one OM get related to that of another?
For the 3-OM, some universal number.
For the 1-OMs, infinities of universal numbers (the one running the
computation below your substitution level).
The "initial time" is given by the succession of the natural numbers,
like in the UD.
I am curious to know if Stathis and others agree with this, or at
least see what I mean. It is always enlightening to imagine yourself
in a (concrete) universe with a UD running in it, then a mere
understanding that the number relations does execute (not just
describe) the UD can help to understand how all "OMs" organize
themselves, so that with OCCAM we don't need to postulate an initial
concrete universe. The movie graph shows that not only we don't need
it, but even if that would exist, we just cannot use it to
"singularize" consciousness. OK?
Bruno
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
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
