On 19 Nov 2012, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote:
I agree with this view, especially the part about the
compatibility of bases leading to a 'sharing of realities' that then
gives rise to an illusion of a single classical reality; I just
phrase the concepts differently. My question to you is how 'simple'
can an observer be, as a system? It seems to me that even particles
could be considered as observers. I buy Chalmers' argument for
I doubt that very much, ...
Me too, as "pan" assumed some physical reality and thus contradict
comp, which is assumed also.
... as if true, then we should expect to find
ourselves as particles,
That was my critics on the ASSA idea (Absolute self-sampling
assumption). But both in comp and in QM all probabilities are relative
to a "prepared state". They have the shape <aIb>, meaning: being in
the Ia> state, what is the probability to be in the Ib> state (or
finding some b eigenvalue).
which is the Occam's catastrophe redux I point
out in my book.
I suspect that as human beings, we rank amongst the simplest of all
Do you think that apes are not conscious?
Do you exclude that other beings, perhaps very similar to humans,
exist in the Mutliverse? or in arithmetic?
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