On 02.01.2012 07:01 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/1/2012 4:59 PM, Pierz wrote:

...

David says it better than I could have, but just to add that when
I say "I" that is just a sort of short-hand for the 1-p
perspective. There is no separate experiencer. In UDA, it's simply
the notes in a 'diary', some verifiable record of that branch of
the computational histories. There isn't really a 'jumping' of
anything, there are just these different computational branches.
And in saying there's one consciousness that experiences every
possible state, that doesn't imply experiencing them
simultaneously. That theoretical objective vantage point, seeing
all histories, is the privilege of God perhaps, or no-one. (Don't
jump on me about the God bit, there's obviously no God in an
arithmetical ontology). Also, just to note that this is no more
incoherent than Everett. Many Worlds implies the same view of the
subject.

Everett's MWI is based on QM which does assume a background time and
the state of the multiverse evolves in Hilbert space. This evolution
entails the evolution of the state of different observers which are
simultaneous.

Is an observer (or better many observers observing simultaneously) is still necessary also by Everett's MWI? What equation then describes an observer?

Evgenii

--
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.

Reply via email to