Re: Variations in measure
On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 12:57:16PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For example, suppose he took a drug which made his mental processes become confused. He was no longer sure of basic facts about himself and the universe. This mental state would no longer be bound to one specific universe. Instead, a large collection of distinct universes could be consistent with this mental state. These observer-moments might therefore have larger measure, since they would correspond to a larger part of the multiverse. I think this is a common occurance. Every time you forget something, a post-forgetting observer-moment would have larger measure than a pre-forgetting observer-moment. And similarly, every time you observe something new, a post-observation observer-moment would have smaller measure than a pre-observation observer-moment. In general, one might expect those minds with less observational power and less specific knowledge and understanding of the universe to have larger measure. Yes, but that doesn't mean you should be surprised if you find yourself having more observational power and more knowledge, because the set of sharp minds can have greater measure than the set of dull minds even if individual sharp minds has less measure than individual dull minds. Does this have any implications for the use of the all-universe hypothesis to explain and predict our observations? What kinds of implications did you have in mind?
Error in Refinements to my model
Sorry, I missed some editing errors in the lead in to the referenced post. I meant to say: I currently define information as fact(s) that are absent counter facts. Example of counter facts [sort of]: In our universe the rules dictate that any sufficiently large mass wants to assume a shape that is essentially a sphere. There are numerous other possibilities that could be the rule in some other universe. The ensemble of all these various rules is a complete set of counter facts that contains no information re this shape issue. Call facts that are absent counter facts factuals. Call counter facts counterfactuals A fact that has counterfactuals is itself a counterfactual. The objective is to model our universe using no information that is by using just complete sets of counterfactuals. First examine the following: The Everything which is defined as the ensemble of all counterfactuals exists. This existence by itself would be a factual and violate the objective. Now let us examine two counterfactuals. 1) The Everything which is the ensemble of all counterfactuals exists. 2) The Nothing which is the absence of all facts both counterfactual and factual exists. The Everything and the Nothing are antipodal representations of no information. The existence of either is the counterfactual to the existence of the other and so the dual existence is allowed under the objective since it represents no information. While the Nothing can not contain the Everything nor itself by definition and the Everything can not contain one or the other, can the Everything contain both? At the moment I think it can and this just produces an infinite nesting. That is the initial mathematical foundation. Next is the exploration of the manifestation of this foundation while defining physical universes as isomorphisms to this manifestation. At any nesting level if the manifestation was unchanging or structurally sequenced that would be a factual. If the manifestation at any given level is a random sequence of piece after piece of the Everything of that level each of which would be automatically accompanied by the counterfactual residual portion of the associated Nothing there would be no factual. Evolving universes must be isomorphic to a portion of each successive manifest counterfactual. The nesting would allow an infinite number of such universes. The rules of isomorphic shift [the laws of physics] for each such universe must have some random [true noise] content in order to sustain the succession of isomorphisms to the random sequence of counterfactuals. Hal
