Even though I believe in QI, I try not to be too blase with my life due to the guilt I'd feel for all sorrow I'd cause my friends & family in the worlds I died in.
I also think the mathematical laws underlying the universes we are in are also subject to anthropic multiplicity; we don't just filter universes, but metaphysics too. Ultimately, all possible laws are admissable, and I expect the really interesting part is how much everything is 'equivalentisable' (to make a word up). At root, I suspect we have two kinds of metaphysics; generative (those that create law and structure ab initio), and holistic (those that describe the shape of the entirity) -- and that they are both correct and equivalent. You'd think with a master's in mathematical logic I'd be able to do better than that, but... :) Michael On 16/04/2008, nichomachus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Apr 16, 4:54 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Le 16-avr.-08, à 03:24, Russell Standish a écrit : > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 02:22:23AM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote: > > > > >>> First off, how is it that the MWI does not imply > > >>> quantum immortality? > > > > >> MWI is just quantum mechanics without the wavefunction collapse > > >> postulate. > > >> This then implies that after a measurement your wavefuntion will be > > >> in a > > >> superposition of the states corresponding to definite outcomes. But > we > > >> cannot just consider suicide experiments and then say that just > > >> because > > >> branches of the wavefuntion exist in which I survive, I'll find > > >> myself there > > >> with 100% probability. The fact that probabilities are conserved > > >> follows > > >> from unitary time evolution. If a state evolves into a linear > > >> combination of > > >> states in which I'm dead and alive then the probabilities of all > these > > >> states add up to 1. The probability of finding myself to be alive at > > >> all > > >> after the experiment is then less than the probability of me finding > > >> myself > > >> about to perform the suicide experiment. > > > > >> The probability of me finding myself to be alive after n suicide > > >> experiments > > >> decays exponentially with n. Therefore I should not expect to find > > >> myself > > >> having survived many suicide experiments. Note that contrary to what > > >> you > > >> often read in the popular accounts of the multiverse, the multiverse > > >> does > > >> not split when we make observations. The most natural state for the > > >> entire > > >> multiverse is just an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian. The energy can > > >> be taken > > >> to be zero, therefore the wavefunction of the multiverse satisfies > the > > >> equation: > > > > > One should also note that this is the ASSA position. The ASSA was > > > introduced by Jacques Mallah in his argument against quantum > > > immortality, and a number of participants in this list adhere to the > > > ASSA position. Its counterpart if the RSSA, which does imply quantum > > > immortality (provided that the no cul-de-sac conjecture holds), and > > > other list participants adhere to the RSSA. To date, no argument has > > > convincingly demonstrated which of the ASSA or RSSA should be > > > preferred, so it has become somewhat a matter of taste. There is some > > > discussion of this in my book "Theory of Nothing". > > > > Actually, I am not sure the ASSA makes sense once we take into account > > the distinction between first and third person point of view. Comp > > immortality is an almost trivial consequence that personal death cannot > > be a first person experience at all. Quantum immortality is most > > plausibly equivalent with comp immortality if the "quantum level" > > describes our correct comp substitution level. But this does not mean > > that we can know what shape the comp immortality can have, given that > > comp forbids us to know which machine we are or which computations bear > > us. > > > Why is this the case? Whether Comp is true or not, it would seem that > the direction of physical research and investigation is in the > direction of discovering the presumed foundational TOE that accounts > for everything we observe. Say, for example, that it were possible to > create in a computer simulation an artificial universe that would > evolve intelligent life forms by virtue of the "physics" of the > artificial universe alone. Why, in principle, is it not possible for > those intelligent beings to discover the fundamental rules that > underlie their existence? They will not be able to discover any > details of the architecture of the particular turing machine that is > simulating their universe (even whether or not they are in fact being > computed), but I don't see any a priori reason why they would not be > able to discover their own basic physical laws. > > Max Tegmark has indicated that it may be possible to get some idea of > which mathematical structure bears our own existence by approaching > from the opposite direction. Though we may never know which one > contains ourselves, it may be possible to derive a probability > distribution describing the likelihood of our location in the > ensemble. > > To go back to the comments you were making about the Prestige: > > If the subject of a quantum immortality experiment finds himself > improbably alive, is he in some sense guilty of the murder of the > other versions of himself? Or not, since those are merely third person > experiences. What constitutes a first person experience? It seems that > you are defining it as an uninterrupted consciousness since comp > implies the "almost trivial consequence that personal death cannot be > a first person experience at all." I am confused by exactly what is > meant by first and third person experiences. > > > > > > -- "They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist-" Last words of Gen. John Sedgwick, spoken as he looked out over the parapet at enemy lines during the Battle of Spotsylvania in 1864. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
