# Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

```
Le 02-juin-05, à 15:23, Lee Corbin a écrit :```
```
```
```
```
```Stathis: So if I am told that tomorrow I will be copied ten times and
one of these copies will be tortured, I am worried, because
that means there is a 1/10 chance I will be tortured.
```
```
Good example, but I would say that you will be tortured with
100% probability at some places, and tortured with 0% probability
at nine others. The characterization of a piece of matter "Stathis
is undergoing torture" is looked upon from the 3rd person as an
entirely physically characterized objective process.
```
```
```
But here I agree with Stathis. What you say can be said with the throw of a dice. There *will be* a 100% probability that I will experience the result n (with n = 1, 2, ...6). And if I make the dice rolling a long time, by adding the Heisenberg uncertainties there will be (with the MWI) a 100% probability for each outcome. But before the experience I am in a maximal state of ignorance, and that gives usually P = 1/6.
```
```
```
```
```Stathis: But when tomorrow comes and I am not the torture victim, I am
relieved, because it is someone else who is suffering, and I can
feel sorry for him in the way I feel sorry for suffering strangers.
```
```
I suggest that this is not the correct, selfish way that you should
look at it. It's just the same as in MWI when there "really is" a
version of you who saw the other outcome. He's you. I have a so-called
proof of this proposition at http://www.leecorbin.com/dupproof.html
```
```
```
I agree "it is you", but I follow Stathis' intuition that before the "splitting" the proba is 1/10 of being "that "you"".
```If not with comp you must accept that Bruno Marchal *is* Lee Corbin.
I think we did arrive at that conclusion before, isn'it?

```
```
```
Stathis: What this means is that if you trace an individual's history from his birth to his ultimate demise (which may never come, if QTI is correct), at each
```time point he is associated with only *one* OM.
```
```
Perhaps my insistence wherever possible of describing what is
happening in our universe from the 3rd person is responsible
for our different ways of talking.
```
```
```
That's an excellent diagnostic. That will help you to understand how I derive the very existence of the "physical laws" or "observable theory" from a ineluctable gap between 1 and 3 person.
```
```
```
```
The conclusion from the above is that the absolute measure of an individual at any time point, from that individual's point of view, is unity. When looking into the future, the other copies in the multiverse do matter, but in this case it is the relative measure of different outcomes rather than the absolute measure which is important. Once the future becomes present, the other copies from the first person perspective are just other people.
```
Well, we aren't yet used to having more than one of us around
at any given time. Perhaps our gut feelings on this issue will
change when the technology allows duplicates. I, for example,
would never dream of regarding my duplicate as another person.
He's me, just running at a different location. (Just as, for
example, my future and past selves are also me, just running
at different times.)
```
```

```
Suppose immortality (for the sake of the argument). Lee1 and Lee2 can become as different as Bruno and Lee now. I think you should consider me as a "you" right now. We were the same amoeba you know, a long time ago.
```

Bruno (I mean Lee ;)

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

```