Re: Conventional QTI = False
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] I suspect you are trying to find ways of making QTI compatible with Jacques ASSA based argument, when it is clear his argument fails completely. Not that the argument is unimportant, as the reasons for the failure are also interesting. What the hell are you babbling about? - - - - - - - Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Physicist / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate I know what no one else knows - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum My URL: http://hammer.prohosting.com/~mathmind/ _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: Conventional QTI = False
Except that it is possible to perform an infinite amount of computation in the big crunch due to Tipler's argument, and only a finite amount of computation with the open universe (Dyson's argument). Sort of the opposite of what you might expect... Anyway, it looks like we're falling into a supermassive black hole right now, but we've got about 100 billion (10^11) years before we hit the event horizon. (Reported in New Scientist a couple of issue ago). Cheers Charles Goodwin wrote: Another thought on the Bayesian / SSA argument. Suppose (recent cosmological discoveries aside) that we discovered that the universe was going to fall back on itself into a big crunch in, say, 1 googol years' time. In such a universe QTI could still operate, but would only operate until the big crunch, which would act as a cul-de-sac. Now the SSA would say that typically you'd expect to find yourself (whatever that means) with an age around 0.5 googol, but that nevertheless there was a finite chance that you'd find yourself at age, say, 20. So assuming the SSA is valid for a moment, it wouldn't rule out QTI (although it would make it seem rather unlikely) if we discussed it when aged 20 in a closed universe. But it would be *impossible* if had the same discussion in an open universe! Odd that the average density of our branch of the multiverse should make all the difference to a theory based on the MWI . . . odd too (though not impossible) that the distant future history of the universe should determine the probability of events in the present . . . (BTW, would I be right in thinking that, applying the SSA to a person who finds himself to be 1 year old, the chances that he'll live to be 80 is 1/80?) Charles -Original Message- From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2001 12:35 p.m. To: Charles Goodwin Cc: Everything-List (E-mail) Subject: Re: Conventional QTI = False The reason for failure of Jacques' argument is no. 1) from Charles's list below, which he obviously thought of independently of me. I originally posted this at http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m583.html, on 10th May 1999. Unfortunately, I couldn't find where the orginal SSA argument was posted - perhaps this was via some other papers. The discussion that followed over the following year was quite interesting at times, and boringly technical at other times. It clarified a number of technical concepts, in particular what became known as the ASSA - which seems exactly like point 3) of Charles's post below: random hoppings of some soul between observer moments. Despite your protestations to the contrary Jacques, which I never found convincing. By contrast, soul hopping does not happen in the usual formulation of QTI, although I grant it is a feature of some computational theories of immortality based on infinite sized universes. I find it very droll that Jacques attempted to tar his opposition's theories with the very same brush that tars his own ASSA theory. The point of this is not to say that QTI is true (for which I retain my usual degree of scepticism), but simply that the Jacques Mallah SSA argument simply does not work as a counter argument. Cheers Charles Goodwin wrote: -Original Message- From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] I suspect you are trying to find ways of making QTI compatible with Jacques ASSA based argument, when it is clear his argument fails completely. Not that the argument is unimportant, as the reasons for the failure are also interesting. What the hell are you babbling about? I don't know whether he's thinking about my objections to the SSA argument, but mine certainly *appear* to undermine it (at least I haven't yet heard a good reason why they don't). Briefly, (1) the SSA argument neglects the fact that even with an infinitely long worldline, everyone must pass through every age from 0 upwards, which is precisely what we observe. It also (2) ignores a selection effect, namely that only in a thermodynamically low number of universes can a person who is not QTI-old expect to communicate with someone who *is* (and hence 99....% of discussion groups will necessarily be composed of QTI-young people). The SSA argument also (3) gives the strong impression (though this could *perhaps* be argued away) that it relies on us treating our worldlines as though we've just been dropped into them at some random point, like Billy Pilgrim; which is, of course, not what happens in reality. Maybe there are some more technical objections to the SSA argument, but these are the simplest and most obvious. Charles
Re: Conventional QTI = False
Hi Saibal, I don't know if there is an accepted formulation for QTI and the conservation of memory, however, the only constraint that seems logical to me is that the consciousness extensions should be logically consistent, because logical consistenty is a prerequisite for consciousness. I can imagine certain branches in which memory is totally lost, (the null case so to speak - because there is really no consciousness continuation) and other branches where memory is totally conserved, yet other cases where memory is transformed to reflect a different pastAll these will come true as long as there is a logical explanation for them to happen. You must keep in mind as Jacques mentionned, that memory is not necessary identical with the past. It only represents the present brain state which reflects in a consistent fashion more or less precisely what the past was. In some branches you will experience increasing old age without limit... all ou need is the logical explanation. For example upon dying as a human, you may wake up as a billion year old ten arm octopus living in a 30 dimensional space realizing that you were just dreaming in 3-Land. The number of explanations seems limitless. In this list, we are what we are, our age probably ranging from 20 to 80 because of our surrounding, because of anthropic reasons. Had we been a billion year old group (with the corresponding historical-anthropic reasons for being 1 billion year old), God knows what we would be talking and worrying about, but we would certainly not be debating this (F)allacious (I)nsane (N)onsense. :-) George Saibal Mitra wrote: QTI, as formulated by some on this list (I call this conventional QTI), is supposed to imply that you should experience becoming arbitrarily old with probability one. It is this prediction that I am attacking. I have no problems with the fact that according to quantum mechanics there is a finite probability that bullets fired from a machine gun toward you will all tunnel through your body. Or, that if you are thrown into a black hole (Russell Standish's example), you might be emitted from the black hole as Hawking radiation. The mistake is that QTI ONLY considers certain branches were you survive without memory loss, other branches are not considered. This leads to the paradox that you should experience yourself being infinitely old etc.. Saibal Charles Goodwin wrote: -Original Message- From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] In the case of a person suffering from a terminal disease, it is much more likely that he will survive in a branch where he was not diagnosed with the disease, than in a branch where the disease is magically cured. The latter possibility (conventional qti) can't be favoured above the first just because the surviving person is more similar to the original person. I don't understand this argument. The person survives (according to QTI) in both branches. In fact QTI postulates that an infinite number of copies of a person survives (although the *proportion* of the multiverse in which he survives tends to zero - but that is because the multivese is growing far faster than the branches in which a person survives). QTI postulates that ALL observer moments are part of a series (of a vast number of series') which survive to timelike infinity. You could object that in the first case your consciousness is somehow transferred to a different person (you ``jump´´ to a different branch that separated from the dying branch before you were diagnosed), but I would say that the surviving person has the same consciousness the original person would have if you cured his disease and erased all memory of having the disease. That isn't necessary (according to QTI). The multiverse is large enough to accomodate an uncountable infinity of branches in which a given person survives from ANY starting state, as well as a (larger) uncountable infinity in which he doesn't. Charles
RE: Conventional QTI = False
Re wrapping around - I've set MS Outlook to wrap at 132 characters (the largest value it will accept). It insists that I wrap somewhere (unfortunately). If you know any way to improve the situation let me know (I often go through and manually stick together the short lines). I could miss out the 's on quoted bits, but that might be confusing Re the SWE versus logical consistency. I suspect that at some deep level the two might become the same thing. If you are thinking of logical consistency from the pov of a conscious observer, I'm not sure what that entails. Is it logically consistent to find that you're really a 30-D octopus playing a 3D virtual reality game? I suppose it might be... But then I'm not sure what LC consists of on this argument. It can't consist of continuity or a lack of surprises! Using the SWE is definitely basing the argument on the known laws of QM, if not GR. The underlying assumption of the MWI is that the SWE describes *everything* (or that it's a very good approximation to the real explanation). Since QTI is based on the MWI, it has to assume the SWE as its basis, I would say. Logical consistency is probably a lower level requirement that in some manner generates the SWE (according to comp. theory at least). But if we're operating on the level of QM and not worrying about what goes on underneath then I'd say the SWE has got to be the basis of QTI. However I must admit I don't see how using the SWE limits the size of the multiverse. The SWE predicts a continuum of resultant states from a given initial states, which leads me to assume that (if the MWI is correct) the multiverse must contain a continuum / uncountable infinity of states. If that's a limit it's a fairly large one by most standards! Re logically possible vs physically possible universes. The set (or whatever one shoud call it) of all logically possible universes is called Platonia by Julian Barbour. The set of all physically possible universes with the same laws of physics as ours (plus some extra information, as David Deutsch has pointed out) is called the Multiverse. Platonia is either as big as the MV (both being continua) or bigger (a higher order of infinity than the Multiverse). All the above assumes the MWI is correct (evidence: quantum interference), and that Platonia exists (evidence (?) : the weak anthropic principle). Charles -Original Message- From: George Levy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2001 10:48 a.m. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Conventional QTI = False Charles Goodwin wrote: George Levy wrote I don't know if there is an accepted formulation for QTI and the conservation of memory, however, the only constraint that seems logical to me is that the consciousness extensions should be logically consistent, because logical consistenty is a prerequisite for consciousness. I think the only constraint is that the extensions should be physically possible, i.e. possible outcomes of the schrodinger wave equation. If those are also logical outcomes then fine, but the SWE is the constraining factor. Interesting. You claim that the only constraint is the SWE. You opinion is based I presume on our current knowledge of physical laws. This puts a definite limit on the size of the multiverse. I claim the only constraint is logical consistency basing myself on the anthropic principle. This also puts a limit on the size of the multiverse. Bruno Marshall claims he can bridge the two by deriving the SWE (or maybe a simplified form) from logical consistency which implies that the currently conceivable physical multiverse is equal in size with the logical multiverse. BTW, your posts are the only ones that do not automatically wrap around at the end of a line, unless you start a new paragraph. Is there any way you or I (us?) could fix this? George
Re: Conventional QTI = False
The lines are too large for my screen to handle but I have fixed that by setting my Netscape to wrap automatically (it does so at around 70 characters). The output is irregular but it's OK. Charles Goodwin wrote: Re wrapping around - I've set MS Outlook to wrap at 132 characters (the largest value it will accept). It insists that I wrap somewhere (unfortunately). If you know any way to improve the situation let me know (I often go through and manually stick together the short lines). I could miss out the 's on quoted bits, but that might be confusing However I must admit I don't see how using the SWE limits the size of the multiverse. The SWE predicts a continuum of resultant states from a given initial states, which leads me to assume that (if the MWI is correct) the multiverse must contain a continuum / uncountable infinity of states. If that's a limit it's a fairly large one by most standards! The limits may just be different orders of infinity. Re logically possible vs physically possible universes. The set (or whatever one shoud call it) of all logically possible universes is called Platonia by Julian Barbour. The set of all physically possible universes with the same laws of physics as ours (plus some extra information, as David Deutsch has pointed out) is called the Multiverse. Platonia is either as big as the MV (both being continua) or bigger (a higher order of infinity than the Multiverse). Immortality does not have to be based on Quantum Theory. It can be derived from basic philosophical considerations borrowed from the Anthropic principle, Descartes and Leibniz (all possible worlds). What Barbour calls Platonia some philosophers call the Plenitude. All the above assumes the MWI is correct (evidence: quantum interference), and that Platonia exists (evidence (?) : the weak anthropic principle). The evidence for the Plenitude (Platonia) is the Principle of sufficient reason or more simply, causality (or the lack of). In the absence of any cause, for any given instance, all other possible instances must also exist. For any instance of universe (ours), all other possible universes must also exist. Hence, the Plenitude. Note, that by invoking the absence of any cause, this derivation specifically steers clear of the Creation by Design argument. In addition, this reliance on rationality, combined with the anthropic principle, leads to a theory of consciousness: I am rational because I am conscious. Bruno may have found a way to express this using a modern mathematical formulation. George
FW: FIN too
-Original Message- From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] The problem is that the probability isn't 0% that you'd find yourself at your current age (according to the QTI - assume I put that after every sentence!). Because you HAVE to pass through your current age to reach QTI-type ages, the probability of finding yourself at your current age at some point is 100%. At some point, yes. At a typical point? 0%. My (ahem) point is, though, that none of us ARE at a typical point (again, assuming QTI). In fact we're in a very atypical point, just as the era of stars might be a very atypical point in the history of the universe - but it's a point we (or the universe) HAVE TO PASS THROUGH to reach more typical points (e.g. very old, no stars left...). Hence it's consistent with QTI that we find ourselves passing through this point... I'm not arguing for QTI here, but I do think that you can't argue from finding yourself at a particular point on your world-line to that world-line having finite length, because you are guaranteed to find yourself at that particular point at some (ah) point. So I'm rejecting, not Bayesian logic per se, but the application of it to what (according to QTI) would be a very special (but still allowable) case. The basic problem is that we experience observer moments as a sequence. Hence we *must* experience the earlier moments before the later ones, and if we happen to come across QTI before we reach QTI-like observer moments then we might reject it for lack of (subjective) evidence. But that doesn't contradict QTI, which predicts that we have to pass through these earlier moments, and that we will observe everyone else doing so as well. I wish I could put that more clearly, or think of a decent analogy, but do you see what I mean? Our observations aren't actually *incompatible* with QTI, even if they do only cover an infinitsimal chunk of our total observer moments. Charles
RE: Conventional QTI = False
-Original Message- From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] I suspect you are trying to find ways of making QTI compatible with Jacques ASSA based argument, when it is clear his argument fails completely. Not that the argument is unimportant, as the reasons for the failure are also interesting. What the hell are you babbling about? I don't know whether he's thinking about my objections to the SSA argument, but mine certainly *appear* to undermine it (at least I haven't yet heard a good reason why they don't). Briefly, (1) the SSA argument neglects the fact that even with an infinitely long worldline, everyone must pass through every age from 0 upwards, which is precisely what we observe. It also (2) ignores a selection effect, namely that only in a thermodynamically low number of universes can a person who is not QTI-old expect to communicate with someone who *is* (and hence 99....% of discussion groups will necessarily be composed of QTI-young people). The SSA argument also (3) gives the strong impression (though this could *perhaps* be argued away) that it relies on us treating our worldlines as though we've just been dropped into them at some random point, like Billy Pilgrim; which is, of course, not what happens in reality. Maybe there are some more technical objections to the SSA argument, but these are the simplest and most obvious. Charles
FW: FIN insanity
-Original Message- From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 2) You would also be the same person if the surgeon made a new brain identically to yours. I'm not sure what you mean here. The new brain would be the same as the old you, the old one would remain the same, the old one was destroyed, or what? As far as I understand quantum physics, this is only true if the new brain is in the same quantum state as the old one - like atoms in a bose-einstein condensate, they would then be literally, physically indistinguishable. However (also as far as I understand quantum physics) it's actually impossible to create two macroscopic objects in the same quantum state, at least, it's impossible to measure the state of one object accurately enough to create one which is idnetical in this sense (which is the only sense the universe recognises). This does not, however, prevent the universe itself from creating two objects in the same quantum state, if it's allowed to generate every conceivable arrangement of mass-energy - as may be the case in a single, infinite universe, and is definitely the case according to the MWI. Charles
FW: FIN Again (was: Re: James Higgo)
-Original Message- From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I've explained that in other posts, but as you see, the idea is indeed mathematically incoherent - unless you just mean the conditional effective probability which a measure distribution defines by definition. And _that_ one, of course, leads to a finite expectation value for ones's observed age (that is, no immortality). Although I have other objections to the quantum theory of immortality, I still don't see how the sampling argument refutes it. Because (as I've said elsewhere) you don't know what a typical observer is. If the QTI is correct then a typical observer moment may *well* be someone who is 10^32 years old wondering why all the other protons have decayed except the ones in his body. But you have no way to find that out *except* by reaching that age yourself, because it's very very very very (keep typing very for another couple of weeks) unlikely that you will meet up with a typical observer who isn't yourself. Charles
RE: FIN Again (was: Re: James Higgo)
-Original Message- From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I've explained that in other posts, but as you see, the idea is indeed mathematically incoherent - unless you just mean the conditional effective probability which a measure distribution defines by definition. And _that_ one, of course, leads to a finite expectation value for ones's observed age (that is, no immortality). I've just realised that according to the Bayesian argument, the chances of someone with an infinite world-line being ANY specific age are infinitesimal. (It also makes the chances of me being the age I am pretty infinitesimal too, come to think of it). That would seem to indicate that the Bayesian argument *assumes* that infinite world-lines (and possibly infinite anythings) are impossible. Sorry I took so long to spot that objection to the SSA argument, which I will call (4). Charles
RE: Conventional QTI = False
-Original Message- From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Except that it is possible to perform an infinite amount of computation in the big crunch due to Tipler's argument, and only a finite amount of computation with the open universe (Dyson's argument). Sort of the opposite of what you might expect... I trust Dyson's argument more than Tipler's - the latter relies on a raft of unproven assumptions about what might be possible during the collapse. I was assuming a conventional big crunch in my argument. Anyway, it looks like we're falling into a supermassive black hole right now, but we've got about 100 billion (10^11) years before we hit the event horizon. (Reported in New Scientist a couple of issue ago). Enough time to move elsewhere I guess. Charles
Re: Conventional QTI = False
The reason for failure of Jacques' argument is no. 1) from Charles's list below, which he obviously thought of independently of me. I originally posted this at http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m583.html, on 10th May 1999. Unfortunately, I couldn't find where the orginal SSA argument was posted - perhaps this was via some other papers. The discussion that followed over the following year was quite interesting at times, and boringly technical at other times. It clarified a number of technical concepts, in particular what became known as the ASSA - which seems exactly like point 3) of Charles's post below: random hoppings of some soul between observer moments. Despite your protestations to the contrary Jacques, which I never found convincing. By contrast, soul hopping does not happen in the usual formulation of QTI, although I grant it is a feature of some computational theories of immortality based on infinite sized universes. I find it very droll that Jacques attempted to tar his opposition's theories with the very same brush that tars his own ASSA theory. The point of this is not to say that QTI is true (for which I retain my usual degree of scepticism), but simply that the Jacques Mallah SSA argument simply does not work as a counter argument. Cheers Charles Goodwin wrote: -Original Message- From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] I suspect you are trying to find ways of making QTI compatible with Jacques ASSA based argument, when it is clear his argument fails completely. Not that the argument is unimportant, as the reasons for the failure are also interesting. What the hell are you babbling about? I don't know whether he's thinking about my objections to the SSA argument, but mine certainly *appear* to undermine it (at least I haven't yet heard a good reason why they don't). Briefly, (1) the SSA argument neglects the fact that even with an infinitely long worldline, everyone must pass through every age from 0 upwards, which is precisely what we observe. It also (2) ignores a selection effect, namely that only in a thermodynamically low number of universes can a person who is not QTI-old expect to communicate with someone who *is* (and hence 99....% of discussion groups will necessarily be composed of QTI-young people). The SSA argument also (3) gives the strong impression (though this could *perhaps* be argued away) that it relies on us treating our worldlines as though we've just been dropped into them at some random point, like Billy Pilgrim; which is, of course, not what happens in reality. Maybe there are some more technical objections to the SSA argument, but these are the simplest and most obvious. Charles Dr. Russell Standish Director High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile) UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 () Australia[EMAIL PROTECTED] Room 2075, Red Centrehttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
RE: Conventional QTI = False
Another thought on the Bayesian / SSA argument. Suppose (recent cosmological discoveries aside) that we discovered that the universe was going to fall back on itself into a big crunch in, say, 1 googol years' time. In such a universe QTI could still operate, but would only operate until the big crunch, which would act as a cul-de-sac. Now the SSA would say that typically you'd expect to find yourself (whatever that means) with an age around 0.5 googol, but that nevertheless there was a finite chance that you'd find yourself at age, say, 20. So assuming the SSA is valid for a moment, it wouldn't rule out QTI (although it would make it seem rather unlikely) if we discussed it when aged 20 in a closed universe. But it would be *impossible* if had the same discussion in an open universe! Odd that the average density of our branch of the multiverse should make all the difference to a theory based on the MWI . . . odd too (though not impossible) that the distant future history of the universe should determine the probability of events in the present . . . (BTW, would I be right in thinking that, applying the SSA to a person who finds himself to be 1 year old, the chances that he'll live to be 80 is 1/80?) Charles -Original Message- From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2001 12:35 p.m. To: Charles Goodwin Cc: Everything-List (E-mail) Subject: Re: Conventional QTI = False The reason for failure of Jacques' argument is no. 1) from Charles's list below, which he obviously thought of independently of me. I originally posted this at http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m583.html, on 10th May 1999. Unfortunately, I couldn't find where the orginal SSA argument was posted - perhaps this was via some other papers. The discussion that followed over the following year was quite interesting at times, and boringly technical at other times. It clarified a number of technical concepts, in particular what became known as the ASSA - which seems exactly like point 3) of Charles's post below: random hoppings of some soul between observer moments. Despite your protestations to the contrary Jacques, which I never found convincing. By contrast, soul hopping does not happen in the usual formulation of QTI, although I grant it is a feature of some computational theories of immortality based on infinite sized universes. I find it very droll that Jacques attempted to tar his opposition's theories with the very same brush that tars his own ASSA theory. The point of this is not to say that QTI is true (for which I retain my usual degree of scepticism), but simply that the Jacques Mallah SSA argument simply does not work as a counter argument. Cheers Charles Goodwin wrote: -Original Message- From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] I suspect you are trying to find ways of making QTI compatible with Jacques ASSA based argument, when it is clear his argument fails completely. Not that the argument is unimportant, as the reasons for the failure are also interesting. What the hell are you babbling about? I don't know whether he's thinking about my objections to the SSA argument, but mine certainly *appear* to undermine it (at least I haven't yet heard a good reason why they don't). Briefly, (1) the SSA argument neglects the fact that even with an infinitely long worldline, everyone must pass through every age from 0 upwards, which is precisely what we observe. It also (2) ignores a selection effect, namely that only in a thermodynamically low number of universes can a person who is not QTI-old expect to communicate with someone who *is* (and hence 99....% of discussion groups will necessarily be composed of QTI-young people). The SSA argument also (3) gives the strong impression (though this could *perhaps* be argued away) that it relies on us treating our worldlines as though we've just been dropped into them at some random point, like Billy Pilgrim; which is, of course, not what happens in reality. Maybe there are some more technical objections to the SSA argument, but these are the simplest and most obvious. Charles -- -- Dr. Russell Standish Director High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile) UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 () Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
