Mitch, Glad you seem to agree. I don't think about in those Wheelerian terms but that sounds pretty consonant with my thinking but there is a lot more to it as explained in Part III, Elementals of my book...
Best, Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 2:13:29 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: > > > Very good, Edgar. Do you now consider Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic > Principle, to not be involved as an observer, but instead, an > unconscious participant? As merely a point of laser light striking an > unaware photo-receptor? It is there to measure, but no cognition > behind it. > > Mitch > -----Original Message----- > From: Edgar L. Owen <[email protected] <javascript:>> > To: everything-list <[email protected] <javascript:>> > Sent: Fri, Dec 27, 2013 12:33 pm > Subject: Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not > needed and thus very unlikely > > Spudboy, > > Good question. > > > It has to be clearly understood that an observer is always a > participant in the event he observes. An observation is always an event. > > > Physics tends to think of observers as standing outside the events they > observe, but what they really do is participate in subsequent events to > the particular event they imagine they are observing. E.g. a human > observer does not actually observe the quantum event he is usually > talking about except through a chain of other events terminating in his > visual participation with a measuring device, which is of course > another set of quantum events, since all events are quantum events. > > > So, in a general sense, all participants in every event, even down to > the particle level, act as observers of that event, and information > about events flows computationally through networks of connected > events. > > > In my book on Reality I call this 'The Sherlock Holmes Principle' and > it is the basis of all knowledge, both scientific knowledge and the > knowledge of direct experience. > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, December 26, 2013 4:14:04 PM UTC-5, [email protected] > wrote:Not to be dense, but what are you defining as participant versus > observer? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> > To: everything-list <[email protected]> > Sent: Thu, Dec 26, 2013 7:25 am > Subject: Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not > needed and thus very unlikely > > Spudboy, > > There is no observer in the usual sense of a human observer needed for > quantum events. But in effect every participant in a quantum event acts > as an observer of that event. The theory of decoherence has rightfully > superseded the old mistaken notion of an observer 'causing' a > wavefunction collapse, if that's what you are referring to. > > > Edgar > > > > > > > On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 11:52:10 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen > wrote:All, > > ST=spacetime, c=speed of light, thus STc Principle. > > > To answer some of Jason's questions. Block time is wrong. Only the > common present moment exists. All the comments Jason makes refer only > to differences in clock times which are well known, but the important > point is that all those differences in clock time occur in the SAME > common present moment.. I find it difficult to understand why so many > people can't get their minds around the difference which proves there > are two distinct kinds of time. > > > The past exists only as inferences from the present as to what states > would have resulted in the present according to the currently known > laws of physics. Therefore the past is actually determined by the > present state of reality from the perspective of the present which is > the only valid perspective. Therefore the logical network of past and > present is absolute 100% exact and could not have been different in > even the slightest detail. The actual currently state of the universe > falsifies the very possibility of other pasts. This is another > difficult concept for many. > > > Only the future is probabilistic because it does not yet exist and has > never been computed. But the past - present logical state has been > actually computed and thus is completely deterministic now that it > exists and it could not have been different in any minute detail at all. > > > This solves the problem of the original fine tuning. Given the current > state of reality which is all that exists, all other conceivable fine > tunings are impossible. This is what I call the 'Super Anthropic > Principle', and it negates the necessity and probably the actuality of > postulating any multiverses and strongly implies our observable > universe is most probably the only one that exists. > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to > [email protected]<javascript:>. > > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
