[RS]
On 7/31/05, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 12:25:48PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
This is not to say that progress is impossible. Consider an idea
like Aditya has: what is the real difference between an event
and an observer-moment? In trying to
Jesse Mazer writes:
as I said, my idea is
that *all* possible causal patterns qualify as observer-moments, not just
complex ones like ours. And I don't disagree that complex observer-moments
are generally the result of a long process of evolution in the physical
universe, it's just that I
Hi Russel,
A possibly related question. Given your definition of events and OMs,
does it not seem that they complement each other, assuming that events have
more quatities associated, such as 4-momentum-energy?
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL
I agree with the notion of OMs as events in some suitably chosen space.
Observers are defined by the programs that generate them. If we identify
universes with programs then observers are just embedded universes. An
observer moment is just a qualia experienced by the observer, which is just
an
Hi Saibal,
Let me add a question to your insightful post. Could we consider the
hardware: itself to be a simulation as well?
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Aditya Varun Chadha [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Lee Corbin
[EMAIL PROTECTED];
Saibal Mitra writes:
I agree with the notion of OMs as events in some suitably chosen space.
Observers are defined by the programs that generate them. If we identify
universes with programs then observers are just embedded universes. An
observer moment is just a qualia experienced by the
Saibal writes
I agree with the notion of OMs as events in some suitably chosen space.
Observers are defined by the programs that generate them. If we identify
universes with programs then observers are just embedded universes. An
observer moment is just a qualia experienced by the observer,
Hi Hal,
Le Dimanche 31 Juillet 2005 19:06, Hal Finney a écrit :
SNIP
This shows that the program really did create the observer-moment, because
there was little extra data in the map program. The correspondence was
in the calculation, not in the map.
In all of these discussion, it is
to all:
since I missed hundreds of posts in this list - now
extremely proliferous and sweeping through subjects
making backtracking a bore,
do we have an agreement on
WHAT do we call an EVENT? Also: To OBSERVE?
In my lay common sense I am inclined to call a step in
a change an event, and the
Russell submits the following as clarifications:
An event is a particular set of coordinates (t,x,y,z) in 4D
spacetime. This is how it is used in GR, anyway.
An observer moment is a set of constraints, or equivalently
information known about the world (obviously at a moment of time).
It
Brent writes
[Lee writes]
[Jesse wrote]
Sure, but all of this is compatible with an idealist philosophy where
reality is made up of nothing but observer-moments at the most
fundamental level--something like the naturalistic panpsychism
discussed on that webpage I mentioned.
I would not be surprised if there were some sort of duality
relationship (note: mathematical term employed here) between observer
moment and event, appropriately defined, however it is unclear how one
might adjust the definitions I gave to illuminate such a duality.
Cheers
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 02:00:30PM -0700, John M wrote:
I salute Lee's new subject designation.
I believe if we are up to identifying concepts with
common sense content as well, we should not restrict
ourselves into the model-distinctions of (any) physics
but generalize the meanings beyond
[-Original Message-Tom Caylor wrote:]
May I offer the following quote as a potential catalyst for Bruno and Colin:
If thought is laryngeal motion, how should any one think more truly than the
wind blows? All movements of bodies are equally necessary, but they cannot be
discriminated as true
Russell writes
John M. wrote
I believe if we are up to identifying concepts with
common sense content as well, we should not restrict
ourselves into the model-distinctions of (any) physics
but generalize the meanings beyond such restrictions.
I agree: that is, so long as we can
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 08:09:46PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
Interesting note about mind: there is no German language
equivalent for it. Another reason to be *very* careful when
employing it. Sarcastic comment about the possibility of
Teutonic zombies elided.
I am surprised about that!
Lee wrote:
Interesting note about mind: there is no German language
equivalent for it. Another reason to be *very* careful when
employing it. Sarcastic comment about the possibility of
Teutonic zombies elided.
In a very deep (but non-mathematical) book, What is Thought?
by Eric Baum, the author
Quentin Anciaux writes:
In all of these discussion, it is really this point that annoy me... What is
the calculation ? Is it a physical process ? Obviously a calculation need
time... what is the difference between an abstract calculation (ie: one which
is done on a sheet of paper or just in
[Lee wrote:]
Interesting note about mind: there is no German language
equivalent for it. Another reason to be *very* careful when
employing it. Sarcastic comment about the possibility of
Teutonic zombies elided.
In a very deep (but non-mathematical) book, What is Thought?
by Eric Baum, the
[Lee wrote:]
Interesting note about mind: there is no German language
equivalent for it. Another reason to be *very* careful when
employing it. Sarcastic comment about the possibility of
Teutonic zombies elided.
In a very deep (but non-mathematical) book, What is Thought?
by Eric Baum, the
[LC]:
Well, Russell did also say that OMs and events seemed to him about as
alike as chalk and cheese. It's starting to look that way:
So, alas, it seems that the firmly established meanings of
event and observer moment can't really be said to be at
all the same thing. (Folks like Russell
21 matches
Mail list logo
