----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 03:06 AM Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
> Saibal Mitra wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Cc: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 07:41 PM > > Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow > > > > > > > >>Saibal Mitra wrote: > >> > >>>----- Original Message ----- > >>>From: "Jonathan Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>To: <[email protected]> > >>>Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 05:49 AM > >>>Subject: RE: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>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. > >> > >>This I find confusing. How is there memory associated with an obserever > > > > moment? > > > >> Is it equivocation on "memory"? As an experience, remembering something > > > > takes > > > >>much longer than what I would call "a moment". It may involve a sequence > >>images, words, and emotions. Of course in a materialist model of the > > > > world the > > > >>memories are coded in the physical configuration of your brain, even when > > > > not > > > >>being experienced; but an analysis that takes OM's as fundamental can't > > > > refer to > > > >>that kind of memories. > > > > > > > > Well, what really matters is that the laws of physics define a probability > > distribution over OMs. So, there is no problem thinking of yourself as being > > sampled randomly from that probability distribution. The length of an OM > > can be taken to be zero. Even if recalling something takes time, at any time > > you are at a certain point in that process. There exists an OM that recalls > > going through that sequence, but that is also at a specific moment in time. > > But you're assuming laws of physics and a physical basis for consciousness. I > thought the idea was to take conscious moments as basic. I'm fine with taking > physics as basic - but then what's the point of talking about observer moments; > conscious observations are then some kind of emergent phenomena and they're > connected by physical causation. > Yes, but it's a fact that there exists laws of physics. I am of the opinion that what really exists is an ensemble of algorithms and that the laws of physics is a consequence of this. Whatever your starting point, you'll end up with an absolute measure over the set of all OMs.
