On 9/21/2011 7:08 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

[SPK]I consider an Observer moment to be the content of experience on an idealnon-anthropomorphic observer that might obtain in a minimum quantity of time, thus thereis a maximum quantity of energy involved, as per the energy-time uncertainty relation(which is controversial as time is not an observable per se!). If we assume that thisobserver is constrained by the laws of QM then its ability to communicate itsinformation/knowledge to another via emission and/or absorption events is finite, it is"quantized", but its observational content is only constrained by the HeisenbergUncertainty relation, a relation that does not put an upper bound on any singleobservable, it only constrains simultaneous measurement of pairs of canonicallyconjugate variables.

## Advertising

You seem to be invoking the Heisenberg uncertainty backwards. What is says is: delta-t*delta-E > hbar

`not "<". So if you make delta-t small then you force delta-E > hbar/delta-t. The HUP`

`puts a *lower* bound on E. Or perhaps you are saying that since and observer has only a`

`finite amount of energy there is a limit on how big delta-E can be and hence delta-t >`

`hbar/max[delta-E] and this provides a lower bound on the duration of an Observer Moment.`

`? Of course as you note time is not an observable in QM, but one can construct quantum`

`mechanical clocks that provide a local measure of time and the HUP applies to them.`

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.