On 5/19/2011 6:08 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:37:29AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 1:41 AM, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:## Advertising

The important point for this argument is that we would have no way of knowing if Last Tuesdayism is true, and this shows that the OM's can be sequenced implicitly from their content.Only if their content is sufficiently comprehesive. If OM=digital computation state, then it will be sufficient. BUT that's my whole objection to line this discussion. Nobody ever defines OM that way. They want an OM to correspond to a "thought" of "an elementary experience".It doesn't matter if the content of a thought is insufficient to sequence it precisely from a third person perspective, since it will be sequenced *precisely enough* from a first person perspective. I think this is our point of misunderstanding: you seem to be talking about objective sequencing, whereas I am talking about subjective sequencing. If I have a moment where I'm so vague that I lack awareness of time, person and place then ipso facto there is no possibility of subjectively sequencing that moment, regardless of how it was generated. If I have a moment where I reflect on who, where and when I am, what I did yesterday, what I will do tomorrow, then ipso facto that moment is subjectively sequenced regardless of how it was generated.In my book, I use OM in two distinctly different contexts. In chapter 4, the concept OM is introduced in the context of the strong self-sampling assumption. It is meant to be an experiential unit of sampling. In chapter 7, OMs are identified with the quantum state \psi, including identifiying the amplitude of \psi with the (necessarily complex) measure of the observer moment. \psi contains just that information needed to define where the observer is in space and time (coordinates are not enough to specify a location in the mulitverse). Are these two usages equivalent (or at least compatible). For the moment, I don't see why not, which is why I wrote the book that way.

`Is this the psi of the universe or just of the observer (which`

`observer)? How is it unit of experience?`

However, these things are not the states of Bruno's universal dovetailer (assuming that particular ontology). Multiple programs will generate the same sequence of experiences, the same sequence of \psi's. Can we answer the question of whether successive \psi's are related to each other? If \psi_1 and \psi_2 are related by a unitary transformation, the we can say that they're related, but the temporal relationship is undefined. Given an operator (observable), we can determine if \psi_2 lies in a lower dimensional eigenspace of the operator than \psi_1, hence \psi_2 is potentially a successor to \psi_1. Also if the magnitude of \psi_2 (if known) is less than \psi_1, it is also potentially a sucessor. But this is all a bit nebulous. I would perhaps like to put it this way - if \psi_1 and \psi_2 can be related by means of a projection operator corresponding to an observable that a conscious being may possibly make, then there is a consious observer in the Multiverse for whom those experiences are so related. Otherwise, they're not related. This probably entails that the set of observers is more likely the powerset of observer moments, depending on how much bite the anthropic principle has. Sorry for rabbitting on here... this is getting a bit speculative.

`I thought you relied on an MWI model in which psi just evolves unitarily`

`and there are no projection operators instantiated by consciousness?`

Brent -- 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.