WDEshleman@aol.com
Fri, 3 Sep 1999 04:36:27 EDT
[SPK]
Can we think of worlds in terms of different NOW/PAST pairs?
[WDE]
I don't think of worlds as NOW/PAST pairs, but you may have
something there. I see the PAST as always gone and that
associating a "change operator" with the PAST is relativistically
wrong (or relativity suggests that it's wrong). Matti, if you are
reading this your help would be appreciated. I may be
misguided, but I look at this as a relativistic first principle,
independent of geometry.
[SPK]
Let's think about this, the PAST is only given in terms of recordings
(information states encoded in physical events, which are in NOW). While
the PAST (events) is indeed gone, never to return, we project or infer a
FUTURE state/event from a comparison of PAST and NOW. Can we define this
"change operator" such that we do not need to consider a single operator
for *all* observers, but one that is identifiable with each observer.
The idea is that each observer was its own time, its own clocking of
the change it can observe, so the notion of NOW/PAST pairs as worlds
would identify the unique history of each observer. This is a radical
shift from thinking of observers as being embedded in a single
space-time to the notion of associating with each observer a space-time
of its own that can "overlap" with that of others.
This is different from the usual MWI, in that the worlds are not all
strictly orthogonal to each other, they can "cast shadows" on each
other! I think that there might be a correlation between the way these
"shadows" move as the angle varies and relativistic effects! I have no
idea how to phrase this mathematically! :-( BTW, that is the
dimensionality of the shadow of a 4-dimensional object?
[WDE]
I think at this point we are still working with the usual MWI since
interference is one of the things it explains very well. That is, the
"overlap" is the interference, if I understand correctly what you mean.
We keep getting back to this requirement by MWI that worlds cannot
communicate with each other. But each object in each world has the
potential to interfere with 1 or more of its counterparts in other worlds.
Usually it takes an interferometer to create the conditions where the
detection of interference is possible. But interference with other world
counterparts may be more common than expected. Perhaps without
many-worlds our minds would be traditional computers, but with the
effect of interference, our minds might become quantum interference
computers capable of being conscious of self and surroundings.
It only stands to reason that we would constantly be bumping into
our other selves, possibly driving the clock of our thinking (processing)
in discrete quantum jumps.
The shadow of 4-d object?
The shadow of a 2-d or 3-d object exposed to a 2-d light source is
2-d on a surface or 3-d in a volume, so......I guess it would be 2-d,
3-d, and/or 4-d, but I am not sure.
Sincerely,
Bill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:39 JST