Le 13-juin-05, à 21:06, Jesse Mazer a écrit :

## Advertising

Hal Finney wrote:Jesse Mazer writes:> If you impose the condition I discussed earlier that absoluteprobabilities> don't change over time, or in terms of my analogy, that the waterlevels in> each tank don't change because the total inflow rate to each tankalways> matches the total outflow rate, then I don't think it's possible tomake> sense of the notion that the observer-moments in that torture-freeminute> would have 10^100 times greater absolute measure. If there's 10^100times> more water in the tanks corresponding to OMs during that minute,where does> all this water go after the tank corresponding to the last OM inthis> minute, and where is it flowing in from to the tank correspondingto the> first OM in this minute?I would propose to implement the effect by duplicating the guy 10^100timesduring that minute, then terminating all the duplicates after thattime.What happens in your model when someone dies in some fraction of themultiverse? His absolute measure decreases, but where does thenow-excess"water" go?In my model, death only exists from a third-person perspective, butfrom a first-person perspective I'm subscribing to the QTI, soconsciousness will always continue in some form (even if my memoriesdon't last or I am reduced to an amoeba-level consciousness)--the"water molecules" are never created or destroyed.

`I agree. This is even related with my "NO KESTRELS, NO STARLINGS" rough`

`summary of physics (see the end of my first combinators post "the`

`chemistry of combinators:`

http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m5913.html I intend to come back on this.

For what would happen when an observer is duplicated from athird-person perspective, it might help to consider the example Idiscussed on the '"Last-minute" vs. "anticipatory" quantumimmortality' thread athttp://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4841.html , where a person isinitially duplicated before a presidential election, and thendepending on the results of the election, one duplicate is latercopied 999 times. All else being equal, I'd speculate that the initial2-split would "anticipate" the later 999-split, so that 999 out of1000 "water molecules" of the first observer would split off into thecopy that is later going to be split 999 times, so before this secondsplit, OMs of this copy would have 999 times the absolute measure ofthe copy that isn't going to be split again.

`I essentially agree. Stathis should not agree, or I have misunderstood`

`Stathis on its last posts. Correct me perhaps.`

I'm not absolutely sure that this would be a consequence of the ideaabout finding a unique self-consistent set of absolute and conditionalprobabilities based only on a "similarity matrix" and the condition ofabsolute probabilities not changing with time, but it seems intuitiveto me that it would.

`I agree except question of vocabulary. It's not important (at this`

`stage).`

At some point I'm going to try to test this idea with mathematica orsomething, creating a finite set of OMs and deciding what the possiblesuccessors to each one are in order to construct something like a"similarity matrix", then finding the unique vector of absoluteprobabilities that, when multiplied by this matrix, gives a unitvector (the procedure I discussed in my last post to you athttp://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m6855.html ). Hopefully theabsolute probabilities would indeed tend to "anticipate" future splitsin the way I'm describing.

`Nice test. I'm curious to see the result. Not sure there is a unique`

`vector. Not sure it is important that there is one. I may be wrong.`

So if this anticipatory idea works, then any copy that's very unlikelyto survive long from a third-person perspective is going to undergoefewer future splits from a multiverse perspective (there will alwaysbe few branches where this copy survives though), so your conditionalprobability of becoming such a copy would be low, meaning that notmuch of your "water" would flow into that copy, and it will have asmaller absolute measure than copies that are likely to survive inmore branches.

Let us see ... Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/