Re: Definitation of Observers

2004-04-26 Thread Eric Hawthorne
An observer is a pattern in space-time (a physical process) which engages in the processing and storage of information about its surroundings in space-time. Its information processing is such that the observer creates abstracted, isomorphic, representative symbolic models of the structures and

RE: Fwd: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-26 Thread Jesse Mazer
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Lets go over this again. There is a 100% chance that some copy of Kory Heath will find himself in the non-bizarre world, even though there will be one billion copies which find themselves in the bizarre worlds. If that single, lucky copy is not *you*, then who is he?

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Kory, (Recall: the 1-9 points we mention can be find by clicking on http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m5384.html ) At 00:04 24/04/04 -0400, Kory Heath wrote: Thanks very much for your clarifications. I clearly misunderstood the intent of your point 8. I thought you were arguing that,

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-26 Thread Saibal Mitra
I remember discussing this with you a few months ago. I am still not convinced though :-) - Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: Sunday, April 25, 2004 06:19 PM Onderwerp: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer? Saibal

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-26 Thread Saibal Mitra
- Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: Kory Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: Monday, April 26, 2004 03:00 AM Onderwerp: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer? At 10:48 AM 4/25/04, Saibal Mitra wrote: This is the ''white rabbit'' problem which was discussed on

Many Worlds invalidated?

2004-04-26 Thread Jeff Bone
Hot off the press, via Boingsters: http://www.boingboing.net/2004/04/26/many_worlds_theory_i.html Many Worlds theory invalidated Kathryn Cramer breaks the story on a to-be-presented Harvard talk on an experiment that appears to invalidate both the Many Worlds and Copenhagen theories of

Re: Many Worlds invalidated?

2004-04-26 Thread Hal Finney
Jeff Bone forwards: http://www.boingboing.net/2004/04/26/many_worlds_theory_i.html Many Worlds theory invalidated Kathryn Cramer breaks the story on a to-be-presented Harvard talk on an experiment that appears to invalidate both the Many Worlds and Copenhagen theories of quantum

Re: Many Worlds invalidated?

2004-04-26 Thread Jesse Mazer
Hal Finney wrote: The MWI is just the quantum formalism minus wave function collapse and is therefore perfectly compatible with this experiment, since the experiment is itself compatible with the quantum formalism. Would this experimental result actually be predicted by the quantum formalism,

RE: Many Worlds invalidated?

2004-04-26 Thread Ben Goertzel
A powerpoint reviewing these ideas is at John Cramer's website: http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/PowerPoint/43 I suspect that advocates of the Copenhagen and MW Interpretations will give different applications of their interpretations to the Afshar experiment than Cramer does. His

Re: Many Worlds invalidated?

2004-04-26 Thread Jeff Bone
BTW, just a caveat --- and I should've caveated the initial forward. I'm not endorsing this or any interpretation of this experiment at all, rather just offering it up to the list in case others had not seen it. $0.02, jb On Apr 26, 2004, at 2:34 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: Hal Finney wrote:

Re: Many Worlds invalidated?

2004-04-26 Thread Jesse Mazer
I wrote: Would this experimental result actually be predicted by the quantum  formalism, though? It sounds like they had a setup similar to the  double-slit experiment and found a small amount of interference even  when they measured which hole the particle traveled through, but I  thought the

Re: Many Worlds invalidated?

2004-04-26 Thread Saibal Mitra
Even if there is only one World, there would still be a sort of Many Worlds branching after each quantum observation, see here: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102010 Many worlds in one Authors: Jaume Garriga, Alexander Vilenkin Comments: 9 pages, 2 figures, comments and references added

RE: Many Worlds invalidated?

2004-04-26 Thread Jesse Mazer
Brent Meeker wrote: I don't find any reference to Afshar or his experiment on the Harvard web site or on arXiv.org? Maybe it hasn't been written up yet, or it just wasn't submitted to arXiv.org. But the Kathryn Cramer blog entry on this had a link to a schedule of talks at a Texas AM physics

Re: Many Worlds invalidated?

2004-04-26 Thread scerir
From: Jesse Mazer Would this experimental result actually be predicted by the quantum formalism, though? It sounds like they had a setup similar to the double-slit experiment and found a small amount of interference even when they measured which hole the particle traveled through, but I

Re: Definitation of Observers

2004-04-26 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Eric: At 03:40 AM 4/26/2004, you wrote: An observer is a pattern in space-time (a physical process) which engages in the processing and storage of information about its surroundings in space-time. In my opinion the most such a pattern can do is contain current features that may in part be

RE: Definitation of Observers

2004-04-26 Thread Brent Meeker
-Original Message- From: Hal Ruhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 11:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Definitation of Observers Hi Eric: At 03:40 AM 4/26/2004, you wrote: An observer is a pattern in space-time (a physical process) which engages in the

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-26 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 26 April 2004 Kory Heath wrote: I am definitely not claiming that only one of the copies is the real me. Every copy is the real me from its own perspective. But to each one of those copies, all the other copies are *different people*. This is true from any perspective, including the