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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at