[ExI] QT and SR

[Mike Dougherty]

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> Naturally, I can't address that because it involves concepts
> which, to put it mildly, I don't understand at all, namely
> "wave collapse".

I'm confident you understand "wave collapse" as much as Stuart
understands "Platonia"

* I wrote:
>> To reference Lee's response to this post, is there any difference in
>> Platonia from our observation of moment t1 to moment t2?  is there a
>> way to distinguish the moment t'2 ?
* Lee replied:
> I am not 100% sure I know what you are asking, but if
> you are asking about one timeless "event" in platonia
...
> platonia all patterns already exist, including all the positive numbers like
> 99999999 and 100000000.

How are Platonic patterns referenced?  how do we 'move' our focus from
one to another if there is no concept of movement in Platonia?  To use
an OOP analogy - if Platonia is all possible class files, and the
instantiated objects exist in our world - then how do we discuss an
individual class from which an object is created?  Is this this
analogy is outside your field of expertise?  Sorry, it's pretty simple
nomenclature for me.  Part of the communication problem, eh?

* Lee:
> Asking about peers brings in a lot of extra machinery,
> from my point of view. To me, we are *no longer* talking about quantum
> mechanics or physics per se,
> but whatever neural events may occur in the brains
> of some very large evolutionarily derived Earth organisms.

Ok then, no peers.  Call them other LeeCorbin run-times; call them
variant lower-dimensional self-models inside a host mind; whatever  :)

* Lee:
> Indeed, it seems folly to try to compare experiences between any two of
> these monstrously large human
> beings, to say that somehow when one of them has
> a (vast) experience involving billions of neurons (that
> were perhaps set into motion by the result of what
> the organism thought about certain photons collected
> in its retina), and that it is comparable to some other
> experiences of an entirely different organism also
> involving billions of neurons.

Now it sounds like you are discussing Stuart's realm of mind being the
key factor in observing the universe.  Is the physical world real by
itself or is it only real when observed?  (Or does it only become real
when the fur has been worn off? I digress...)

* Lee:
> Yes, sorry, but I do think that people's experiences are not
> at all that comparable. We're damned lucky that we can even both look up
> into the sky and agree that it's dark---although
> if the conversation is allowed to proceed very long, exactly
> how dark and exactly which points of light conceal the darkness
> and by how much will lead to controversy, with one of us
> reading one value of a spectrometer and another of us reading
> an almost but not quite equal value.

Absolutely agreed.