OOps sorry I sent an empty post by accident. I agree with you here. But I am new to this field so I am uncertain about so many things. However, I don't understand why it is that a UD would know how to generate these law like sequences of states. It may well generate all possible programs that generate all possible universes (with different values for the physical constants say - maybe even different laws) but I wonder why our conciousness defines itself by "selecting" only those "consistent" extension among all the states available that obey a certain set of laws of physics.
I thought that a TOE should explain the laws of physics and Bruno states in his SANE paper " Conclusion: Physics is given by a measure on the consistent computational histories, or maximal consistent extensions as seen from some first person point of view. Laws of physics, in particular, should be inferable from the true verifiable ‘‘atomic sentences’’. Those are the verifiable arithmetical sentences. They should be true everywhere (= in all comp histories), true somewhere (= true in at least one comp history), and inferred from the DU-accessible ‘‘atomic’’ states". It feels a bit lie a chicken and egg situation - do we pick out the laws or do they pick us?. But I am still working my way through this and and loads of other stuff, so I don't understand it yet. Best Nick On Jan 5, 6:59 pm, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > Nick Prince wrote: > > Is this because you think of your stream of consciousness as somehow > > like a reel of film? All the individual pictures could be cut from > > the reel and laid out any which way but the implicit order is always > > there. I can understand this because all the spatio temporal > > relationships for the actors in the film remain "normal" i.e obey the > > laws of physics. > > But there's the rub. Why the laws of physics? That's what somehow > needs to be explained. Is there something about the UD that necessarily > generates law like sequences of states with high probability? Doesn't > it generate just those laws we seem to find - that would be a great > discovery. Or does it generate all possible non-self-contradictory > multiverses - in which case nothing has been explained. > > > Deutsch argues similarly in the Fabric of reality. > > In my work I often come across the idea of a foliation of > > hypersurfaces which is really a set of 3D pictures "stuck together and > > stacked in the direction of the time coordinate of the world at a > > given instant of time. > > But that's starting with the physics given, so the hypersurfaces and > their relation is already defined. > > Brent > > > > > In MW interpretation though I guess that the > > stacking is less certain as in the block universe idea but that's > > another issue. Is this analogy similar to how you feel the "obvious" > > experience of time being normal? > > > Best > > > Nick- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
