RE: Observer Moment or Observer Space?
Hi Russell: In response to Jason you wrote: >An OM is a state of a machine. In as far as the machine is embedded >in space, the the OM is spread across space. Successive OMs involve >state change, In my model a universe is an incomplete entity [a Something or a Nothing] within the Everything [the ALL(s) + the Nothing(s)[nesting provides the multiplicity]] that is driven towards completeness by un-resolvable meaningful [to that entities current state] questions that require resolution. I suppose this constitutes a "machine". I wonder if these conclusions - [machines/dynamics] - indeed impose the property of having space like aspects on the Everything in addition to time like aspects? Further - would that in turn give it a wider "physical" matrix? >ie must differ by at least a bit. Therefore, OMs must >also be extended in time by some finite amount, rather than be of >infinitesimal direction. I agree. >Of course this finite amount of time will be >observer dependent, How do you mean that. I do not see that state dwell duration differs within a given universe. I also do not see a fixed value even for a particular universe. Hal Ruhl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Malcom/Standish white rabbit solution
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 09:27:50PM +0100, Alastair Malcolm wrote: > > > > I use universe and history, or OM-sequence almost synonymously. Since > > it was I who made the comment, it is what I meant. I think your method > > can only work if the sequence of OMs observed by an observer is > > describable as the outcome of some deterministic, or near > > deterministic law. > > Yes, but it's not a local law: the point is that the minimum specification > is whatever minimally specifies a normal OM (including what constitutes it > etc). The presumption is that this will be something like a TOE, which will > likely incorporate some compressed version of mwi, and so would lead to > apparent indeterministic qm at the physical universe branch level > (considered as OM sequences if you wish). > I think you're still missing the point of the UDA. An ensemble like the all strings ensemble (or UD*) necessarily predicts a predominence of OMs of high measure that are the consistent continuation of the OM we experience now. My argument is that some required property of the observer steps in to prevent these states from being experienced. Another way of looking at it is to see that evolution is the only information generating process in the Multiverse, and the evolution requires heritability, also known as preservation of information. From this, the axioms of quantum mechanics follow, which are sufficient (perhaps) to banish the white rabbit. Anyway, there is a connection between this heritability requirement and the robustness requirement I use in my White Rabbit treatment, although I haven't connected the dots. -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Malcom/Standish white rabbit solution
- Original Message - From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 1:20 AM Subject: Re: Malcom/Standish white rabbit solution > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 02:31:45PM -, Alastair Malcolm wrote: >> > >> > No - by universe, I mean a classical branch of the multiverse. The >> > multiverse is, as you say, deterministic. >> >> I think I should just try to clarify here - the minimum specification >> idea >> as applied to a multiverse (what my term 'universe' was intended to >> include) >> would in some cases lead to apparent indeterminism at the level of >> branches - the mwi scenario. I don't see a problem there. >> > > I use universe and history, or OM-sequence almost synonymously. Since > it was I who made the comment, it is what I meant. I think your method > can only work if the sequence of OMs observed by an observer is > describable as the outcome of some deterministic, or near > deterministic law. Yes, but it's not a local law: the point is that the minimum specification is whatever minimally specifies a normal OM (including what constitutes it etc). The presumption is that this will be something like a TOE, which will likely incorporate some compressed version of mwi, and so would lead to apparent indeterministic qm at the physical universe branch level (considered as OM sequences if you wish). I just don't see that this follows from Occams > razor, which predicts that we live in a Multiverse. If Occam's Razor does predict a multiverse, that would fit nicely. > > Cheers > > -- > > > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Mathematics > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
