On 9/21/2011 7:08 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
I consider an Observer moment to be the content of experience on an ideal non-anthropomorphic observer that might obtain in a minimum quantity of time, thus there is 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 this observer is constrained by the laws of QM then its ability to communicate its information/knowledge to another via emission and/or absorption events is finite, it is "quantized", but its observational content is only constrained by the Heisenberg Uncertainty relation, a relation that does not put an upper bound on any single observable, it only constrains simultaneous measurement of pairs of canonically conjugate variables.

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.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to