Do things constantly get bigger?
Hal, Your phrase . . . constantly get bigger reminds me of Mark McCutcheon's The Final Theory where he revives a notion that gravity is caused by the expansion of atoms. Norman - Original Message - From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 8:59 AM Subject: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM... Saibal Mitra writes: This is actualy another argument against QTI. There are only a finite number of different versions of observers. Suppose a 'subjective' time evolution on the set of all possible observers exists that is always well defined. Suppose we start with observer O1, and under time evolution it evolves to O2, which then evolves to O3 etc. Eventually an On will be mapped back to O1 (if this never happened that would contradict the fact that there are only a finite number of O's). But mapping back to the initial state doesn't conserve memory. You can thus only subjectively experience yourself evolving for a finite amount of time. Unless... you constantly get bigger! Then you could escape the limitations of the Bekenstein bound. Hal Finney
Re: Do things constantly get bigger?
At 01:28 PM 6/3/2005, Norman Samish wrote: Hal, Your phrase . . . constantly get bigger reminds me of Mark McCutcheon's The Final Theory where he revives a notion that gravity is caused by the expansion of atoms. Norman That's the excuse I use. RM - Original Message - From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 8:59 AM Subject: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM... Saibal Mitra writes: This is actualy another argument against QTI. There are only a finite number of different versions of observers. Suppose a 'subjective' time evolution on the set of all possible observers exists that is always well defined. Suppose we start with observer O1, and under time evolution it evolves to O2, which then evolves to O3 etc. Eventually an On will be mapped back to O1 (if this never happened that would contradict the fact that there are only a finite number of O's). But mapping back to the initial state doesn't conserve memory. You can thus only subjectively experience yourself evolving for a finite amount of time. Unless... you constantly get bigger! Then you could escape the limitations of the Bekenstein bound. Hal Finney
RE: Do things constantly get bigger?
You are constantly getting bigger. Photons emitted from you, and hence entangled with your atomic states, form an shell expanding at the speed of light. Eventually beings on other planets will be able to see you via these photons. Brent Meeker -Original Message- From: Norman Samish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 6:29 PM To: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Do things constantly get bigger? Hal, Your phrase . . . constantly get bigger reminds me of Mark McCutcheon's The Final Theory where he revives a notion that gravity is caused by the expansion of atoms. Norman - Original Message - From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 8:59 AM Subject: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM... Saibal Mitra writes: This is actualy another argument against QTI. There are only a finite number of different versions of observers. Suppose a 'subjective' time evolution on the set of all possible observers exists that is always well defined. Suppose we start with observer O1, and under time evolution it evolves to O2, which then evolves to O3 etc. Eventually an On will be mapped back to O1 (if this never happened that would contradict the fact that there are only a finite number of O's). But mapping back to the initial state doesn't conserve memory. You can thus only subjectively experience yourself evolving for a finite amount of time. Unless... you constantly get bigger! Then you could escape the limitations of the Bekenstein bound. Hal Finney
