Hi Quentin, Stathis, Bruno Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi Quentin, Stathis, BrunoHi Georges, if you start from OMs as basic, then a branch is a set of OMs (only "consistent"/ordered set ?). Then it means a branch is unique. Some part of different branches could overlap, but as I don't understand what could be an absolute measure (meaning it never change and is fixed forever) between all branches, I don't see how to assert the measure of a branch... Also viewing from this point each 1st pov "lives" in its own branch (as a branch is an ordered set of OMs which in turn is associated to a 1st person). It all depends how you see the plenitude, OMs and the branching. Is consciousness like a traveller in a network of roads traversing the plenitude, some roads branching some roads merging? If yes then you could have several independent consciousness occupying the same spot, or the same OM. Then their measure at that spot is their sum. This approach is a third person point of view and it leads to the concept of absolute measure. If you see consiousness as the road itself, then measure is not increased after a merge and does not decrease after a split. An OM is just a point on the road. If the road turns unexpectedly to avoids an obstacle (like quantum suicide or just plain death), then consiousness will just move on into a direction which has a low 3-rd person probability but unity first person probability. Viewing consciousness as a network of roads is a first person point of view and it leads to the concept of relative measure: Measure is always 1 where you are. >From a given point you may reach many points - Then measure increases with respect to that point. Or reversibly, from many points you may reach only one point. Then measure decreases. Bruno writes: >neither elimination of information, nor duplication of information. The crux of the matter is the concept of indistinguishability: whether you consider two identical persons (OMs) occupying two identical universes the same person (point on the road). It is clear that if you consider the problem from the information angle, then duplication of information does not increase the measure of that information. This would support the relative interpretation of measure. George Quentin Le Jeudi 8 Décembre 2005 22:21, George Levy a écrit :Bruno Marchal wrote:Le 05-déc.-05, à 02:46, Saibal Mitra a écrit :I still think that if you double everything and then annihilate only the doubled person, the probability will be 1.Actually I agree with this.So far we have been talking about splitting universes and people. Let's consider the case where two branches of the universe merge. In other words, two different paths eventually happen to become identical - Of course when this happens all their branching futures also become identical. Would you say that such a double branch has double the measure of a single branch even though the two branches are totally indistinguishable? How can you possibly assert that any branch is single, double, or a bundle composed of any number of identical individual branches? George |

- Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow George Levy
- Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow Stathis Papaioannou
- Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow Bruno Marchal
- Re: Quantum Immortality and Information F... Stathis Papaioannou
- Re: Quantum Immortality and Informati... Bruno Marchal
- Re: Quantum Immortality and Info... daddycaylor
- Re: Quantum Immortality and ... Stathis Papaioannou
- Re: Quantum Immortality ... daddycaylor
- Re: Quantum Immortality ... daddycaylor
- Re: Quantum Immortality ... Jesse Mazer
- Re: Quantum Immortality ... daddycaylor