Of course, we all live in the same universe in the sense that we are all simulated by brains that exist in this universe (described approximately by the Standard Model and General Relativity). The problem is how to define the observer moments rigorously at least in principle. It is undeniable that we experience a the world that our brains are simulating and not the real world. We experience the real world only indirectly.
If you touch a hot object and burn your finger then you experiencing the pain is really an event that happens in the virtual world simulated by your brain. Your brain simply uses the results of the simulation to compute what action to take in the real world (and the simulation will then be updated accordingly). The burning sensation exists only in the simulated world, not in the real world. Of course, you can infer that the object must have been hot. So, it seems to be more sensible to me to say that an observer moment is itself an entire universe (= program) in some state. This looks equivalent to specifying the exact state a brain is in, but the brain contains more information than is accessible to the observer. We really have to extract the program the brain is running from the brain and use that to define OMs, otherwise an OM becomes an inherently ambiguous concept (e.g. where does the brain end, do the nerves in my feet also count? etc. etc.). One can simply define an observer as some program and look at the entire multiverse to seek out these programs that are in such and such state. Then one adds up all the absolute measures to obtain the total probability that the program is experiencing that state. One would then expect that it is likely that a program defining a human observer is simulated by a brain in a universe described by the Standard Model. citeren Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Saibal Mitra wrote: >> 1) looks better because there is no unambiguous definition of "next". >> However, I don't understand the "shared by everyone" part. Different >> persons are different programs who cannot exactly represent the >> "observer moment" of me. >> >> As I see it, an observer moment is a snapshot of the universe taken by >> my brain. The brain simulates a virtual world based on information from >> the real world. We don't really experience the real world, we just >> experience this simulated world. Observer moments for observers should >> refer to the physical states of the virtual world they live in. Since >> different observers live in different universes which have different >> laws of physics, these physical states (= qualia) cannot be compared to >> each other. > > How do you know they live in different universes? The great > agreement among observers is what leads us to believe in an objective > world. It appears that it is more economical (both ontologically and > algorithmically) to explain the agreement by supposing there is an > objective world as described by physics. In which case the observer > moments are derivative from the objective world - that's what makes > it a more efficient hypothesis. > > Brent Meeker > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
