On 9/25/2012 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Yes, and these micro-branches are effectively classical because the system is entangled with a large number of environmental degrees of freedom. Still, you can't identify a conscious observer with a particular micro-branch, you need to consider a large number of them, as only then the computation that is carried out to render the observer becomes well defined.


I see this statement to be consistent with Bruno's consideration of a 1p as an intersection (of sorts) between an infinite number of computations. I just wish Bruno would see that his problem with measures might be just comp's version of the partition problem for Abelian von Neumann subalgebras!

I don't understand this remark.  Can you explain?

Note that I cannot look into your brain and determine which micro-branch you really are in, as that would vastly exceed the maximum capacity of my brain. Only for simple systems that can be described in a few bits of information can we be aware of the complete information that completely fixes the system.

Does not the Bekenstein bound put an upper bound on the classical information that we can measure?

The Bekenstein bound and the holographic principle put an upper bound on the total entropy within a horizon; it's a QFT conjecture, not just classical.


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