On 9/21/2011 2:28 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Andrew Soltau, not Crag Weinberg, wrote the explanation that I quoted
here as it appeared in my last post. My apologies to all for this
The ideal case of a bisimulation is an equivalence between
computations. For example, a pair of implemented computations are
bisimilar when, given identical inputs, they yield identical outputs.
We generalize the idea to the dynamical synchronization and
coincidence of propositions within logical algebras.
Here is something that Andrew Soltau wrote that explains the idea well:
"I look in my inbox and here is a message, in my reality. It is from
you, but, in my reality, you are an icon of another parallel reality.
Before I click on the message and see the content, in my reality, the
content is indeterminate. It is all possible contents with that title.
As I look at it, I become one specific version of me, reading a
specific version of the message. (So the me that got the message in my
inbox, with a specific title and date, but contents unknown, has just
fissioned into every possible version.) This makes determinate also
which version of you has written the message. But this means solely
that I am correlated with a version of Stephen who wrote that message.
In my solipsism, this message has come from every possible version of
Stephen with whom I have shared a history, and who wrote that exact
message, a vast, and possibly infinite, number of Stephens. More
accurately, the quantum definition of my specific version of the
environment, out of all of the versions which just fissioned into
being, defines a specific message. It must have been written by a
possible version of Stephen, and all such versions exist 'out there'
in their own solipsisms.
I reply, which in my reality means that I formulate a message and
commit it to the email system with the address stephe...@charter.net.
By doing so I am interacting with the avatar in my reality which I
call Stephen Paul King and with whom I have an increasing sense of
friendship! None of this does away with the humanistic side of things.
By making this message determinate in my reality, and sending it to
stephe...@charter.net, I am making it 'the message from Andrew' for
all versions of Stephen who get that version of the message, from that
version of Andrew who sent it. But the correlation between the two
realities in which this message is sent and received is not a property
of the two minds communicating by any medium or interrelationship. In
the multiverse of all possibilities, there are bound to be some
versions of Stephen who sent the message I got, and who then 'got
back' the message I sent. But he is simply dealing with the avatar in
his reality. 'Out there' is every possible variation of Andrew, so
some of them are bound to get his message, because there is a version
of Andrew which gets every possible message. Stephen's message does
not 'reach Andrew' in another solipsism. If it did, we would not be in
solipsisms. Stephen makes determinate the message he sends in his
reality. By doing so, he correlates his reality with all other
realities in which an Andrew gets that message from a Stephen. And the
you that you know yourself to be is only one of a vast, and possibly
infinite, number of Stephens who send that message, all of whom are
correlated with the Andrew (actually of course, a vast, and possibly
infinite, number of Andrews) who get that message."
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at