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

Le 09-juin-05, à 23:10, Jonathan Colvin a écrit :

Bruno wrote:

There's a third possibility, which is that the "I" pre-split can not be
identified with either of the post-split individuals. As per my reponse to
Stathis, the question is ill-posed. You can interview the non-tortured
individual post-split, and while it may feel to him that he is "me", the
same will be true for the other individual. So which is "me"? The most
sensible response is that the question is ill-posed.

Yes but then, with comp or just MWI (Many World Interpretation of QM), all question on my future is ill-posed. But clearly this is empirically untenable. If I look to a cat in the state DEAD+ALIVE, I put myself in the state I.DEAD + I.ALIVE, and if this made the question ill-posed, not only you must abandon comp, but you must reintroduce the collapse in QM.

If I take a loaf of bread, chop it half, put one half in one room and one half in the other, and then ask the question "where is the loaf of bread?",
we can likely agree that the question is ill-posed.

Obviously. But the bread has no first person point of view. The main point with comp (or QM-without collapse- is that although we are 3-duplicable (like the bread) we are not 1-duplicable. If you cut me in Brussels and paste me in both Sidney and Beijing then by comp I survive, but by comp I will survive at the places, but still i will feel to be in one place, either Beijing or Sidney, without any clue why "I am the one in Sidney" or "I am the one in Bejing". You can also iterate the dupl. experiment 64 times and interview the 2^64 resulting individuals. A vast majority will conclude it is equivalent with a Bernouilli experiences, and by comp, that is the right conclusion.

The question "what will I feel tomorrow" only has an answer assuming that
tomorrow there is a unique "me".

But there will be a unique 1-me, even if they will be a lot of 3-me.

If I have been duplicated, there is no
longer a definite answer to the question.

Either you are right, but then comp is false, or you are failing to see that we can be both 1-uncertain and 3-certain. If the 1-uncertainty is not quantifiable then comp is false.

Bruno

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