----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <everything-list@eskimo.com> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 10:02 PM Subject: RE: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow

## Advertising

> > Saibal wrote: > > > > The answer must be a) because (and here I disagree with > > > > Jesse), all that exists is an ensemble of isolated observer > > > > moments. The future, the past, alternative histories, etc. > > > > they all exist in a symmetrical way. It don't see how some > > > > states can be more ''real'' than other states. Of course, the > > > > universe we experience seems to be real to us while > > > > alternative universes, or past or future states of this > > > > universe are not being experienced by us. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, you must think of yourself at any time as being randomly > > > > sampled from the set of all possible observer moments. > > > > > > <delurk> > > > > > > I'm not sure how this works. Suppose I consider my state > > now at time <N> > > as > > > a random sample of all observer moments. Now, after having > > typed this > > > sentence, I consider my state at time <N + 4 seconds>. Is > > this also a > > random > > > sample on all observer moments? I can do the same at now > > <N+10>, and > > so-on. > > > It seems very unlikely that 3 random samples would coincide > > so closely. So > > > in what sense are these states randomly sampled? > > > > It's a bit like symmetry breaking. You have an ensemble of > > all possible > > observer moment, but each observer moment can only experience > > its own state. > > So, the OM samples itself. > > > > There exists an observer moment representing you at N > > seconds, at N + 4 > > seconds and at all possible other states. They all ''just > > exist'' in the > > plenitude, as Stathis wrote. The OM representing you at N + 4 has the > > memory of being the OM at N. Subjectively the OMs experience > > time evolution, > > even though the plenitude itself doesn't have a time evolution at the > > fundamental level. > > I understand all that, but I still don't see in what sense these OM's are > randomly sampled. > > Here's a related question. The DDA insists that we must all consider > ourselves random observers on our reference class, whatever it is (class of > all observers is standard). Now, if I am a random observer, and you (Saibal) > are a random observer, what are the odds that two observers selected > randomly from the class of all observers would be discoursing on the same > mailing list? We can only conclude that one of us can not be random, but > must have been selected by the other. But did I select you, or did you > select me? If we select each other, the randomness issue is not resolved. > > Another possibility is, I suppose, to simply *define* randomness as observer > self-selection. Perhaps observer self-selection is the only truly random > phenomenon in the universe (everything else appearing random is merely > unpredictable). But it is then a purely a first-person phenomenon, and I can > not consider anything else in the universe (including *your* observer > moments) as random. > Yes, I meant ''random'' in the sense of observer self selection. But note that the laws of physics define, in principle, a probability distribution over the set over all possible states you can be in. One element of that set corresponds to you reading this sentence. The probability of this is given by an integral of the probability of states of the universe that are consistent with you experiencing this OM. So, you ''integrate out'' everything that is not part of the OM and you are left with the probability of the OM.