On 29/08/2017 3:17 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
I attach a brief PDF of what I have so far. It shows how observer moments, modelled as sets of bitstrings classified by looking at a finite number of bits naturally map to vectors in a complex vector space. There are some lemmas, proofs and conjectures (theorems I haven't managed to prove yet, but think are plausible).
I have had a look through your notes.I am not sure that I fully understand the direction you are heading in, but I have one or two comments to make at this stage.
You say: "A conscious observer of these strings will only examine a finite number of bits prior to making a decision on the meaning." This strikes me a tending to be a little dualist -- there is no-one examining any strings; some string or other corresponds to the actual observer (moment), so it is not "observed", it is the actual OM. Secondly, you take this string to be a fixed, finite length prefix, followed by an infinite string of "don't care" bits. I don't see that you can take the OM to be the leading section of the string -- it could occur anywhere, and there might be an essentially infinite string of lead-in "don't care" bits. But I don't think that this is necessarily a problem for your analysis. The assumption that the OM is a finite section of the string might be a bit strong -- why could it not be an infinite sub-section of the infinite string? The problem with infinite bit strings describing OMs might be that indexing becomes problematic.
The main difficulty I see is that you are simply analysing some properties of sets of strings. I do not see any way that you can characterize these strings as OMs. You start by picking out the set of strings containing an OM, but I do not see how you can ensure that manipulations of these strings necessarily leads to other possible OMs. What makes a string an OM -- other thanthe fact that that is how you select the string in the first place. Changing it in any way has not been shown to lead to some other OM. I don't see that an OM can match a number of different prefixes -- after all, the "prefix" is the OM! Of course, the same prefix might have any number of following "don't care" bits, so an OM is a union of atomic OMs, as you say.
I also don't really like the idea that the outcome of a measurement can be modelled via set intersection. OM A plus measurement outcome B is not necessarily the intersection of A and B. B is a measurement outcome, not necessarily an OM in itself. The OM representing A observing some measurement outcome B is surely some new OM, and it is not clear to me how it is to be related to either A or B without making some pretty strong assumptions.
More comments later...... Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
