On 1/2/2012 12:24 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
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
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
Is an observer (or better many observers observing simultaneously) is still necessary
also by Everett's MWI? What equation then describes an observer?
No. "Observer" is just shorthand for an interacting system that "collapses" the wave
function, i.e. couples the thing observed into the quasi-classical environment. The
observation is the mathematical step of tracing over the environmental degrees of
freedom. So, within physics, there's an equation describing observation.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at