This business of histories not interacting... does the Bell Inequality have some bearing here? My intuition is that the universe behaves classically while it's linked to consciousness - quantum interference is fine as long as it leaves no 'split-states' hanging around to be observed/otherwise-directly-affecting-consciousness. (Or, rephrasing, quantum behaviour can be observed after-the-fact, but interacting with split-states splits consciousness and maybe also produces nonconscious split-minds.)
The short version: the universe is fully quantum whenever we aren't looking at it. 2008/12/1 Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On 30 Nov 2008, at 20:21, M.A. wrote: > > *Bruno,* > * Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the detailed explanations. > I'll post my responses in an interlinear manner using color to > differentiate (if that's ok). M.A.* > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *Sent:* Saturday, November 29, 2008 3:49 PM > *Subject:* Re: Consciousness and free will > > > On 29 Nov 2008, at 16:45, M.A. wrote: > > *(Assuming MEC/Comp.and MWI) If the computational universe which I > experience* > > > > Assuming MEC I would say *you* experience an infinity of computational > histories. > > > > The term "universe" is far too ambiguous (now). > > *But isn't each history separated from all others by impermeable > walls? Do you mean that the word "universe" is > ambiguous or just my use of it?* > > > The word "universe" is ambiguous. > And yes, each history is separated from all others, despite all histories > are mixed in some other histories. But *you* (third person, your bodies) > belongs to a continuum of histories, and although they does not interact, it > changes your probabilities on your possible consistent extensions. > > > > > > > > > *is a single instance of a vast array of similar universes playing out > every possible variation of the initial axioms, then no one universe could > depart from its predetermined program since in so doing it would alter its > program and duplicate that of another universe thus spoiling the overall > mission of implementing every possible variation.* > > > Histories can bifurcate in a way that you will find yourself in both > histories ("you" seen from some third person point of view). Each histories > is deterministic but, your future is uncertain. > > *But what about the first person "me"? "I" am only conscious of one > history.* > > > Perahps. It could be a question of language. If you look at an electronic > orbital you could see a cloud of possible positions, accessible by > position-measurement. In a sense you "look" (indirectly) at the many > histories you are simultaneously in, a bit like you computes in many > histories you are in when you are using a quantum computer. When we will > accept, not only digital brain, but quantum digital brain change of language > will occur. To use the correct language now could be like learning quantum > field theory for doing a pizza. > > > > > > > *It follows that each program-universe is completely detirministic* > > > All right. > > > > *and that consciousness is merely an observing passenger inside the > program;* > > > > At some point I could "defined" consciousness as the state of > (instinctively at first) betting on a history. This will speed up yourself > relatively to your current stories, and make greater the set of your > possible continuation. As an exemple you become aware an asteroïd is coming > nearby make it possible for you to envisage a set of possible decisions, > which can themselves augment your probability of survival. > > *It seems like the present copy of "me" can "envisage these decisions", > but be unable to carry them out unless they are part of his deterministic > history.* > > > Yes. In some case, perhaps not your's, this can be helped by doctor, > shaman, yoga, regime, drugs, sports, music, etc. It is difficult. > > > > *the conscious observer, refusing to give up the notion of free will, > explains the lapse by rationalizations such as: God, luck, destiny, > possession, halluciation etc.* > > > As far as I understand, the program here acknowledge its ignorance. If, by > being too much proud, he doesn't, then he make higher some catastrophe > probabilities. > > *But isn't his problem of pride determined in some history, namely the one > "I" experience?* > > > Sure. It depends of our parents, education, etc. You can abstract such > problems away, but this need works. It depend on the short and long pasts. > We have inherited of million years of family trifles, we have kept some of > our reptile instincts. But we can learn, for the better or the worse. > > > > *accept the intercession of supernatural powers (theology),* > > > > "it" could just accept it belongs to a collection of deep unknown > histories, and many other unknown things, some even not nameable (and deadly > if named). It can consolate itself by pointing on its *partial* control. > > *Not very consoling when entangled with the intense immediacy and > sensitivity of one's ego.* > > > Sure. Again here yoga and music and rest can help, but life can be > difficult. Comp does not offer any consolation, except for those who like to > search, it gives some light. But light is not necessarily consoling, it > shows you the "monster" you did not expect sometimes. > > > > Note also that it is not really the program or the machine who thinks, but > the people "vehiculated" trough that machine computation relatively to its > most probable (and local) computational histories. > > *But I think as an individual, not as a group.* > > > I agree, but I don't see the point. > > > *All of which implies a schism between consciousness and one of the > following: the program, the universe or itself.* > > > > Here I agree. Universal machine are born to experience such a schism. We > can come back on this. In its purer form it is a consequence of > incompleteness. All universal machine hides a mystery to themselves, and > more the machine learn, more that mystery is bigger. (This is related to the > gap between G and G*, for those who reminds previous explanations). > > *I find this most profound.* > > > > Nice. It is related with the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus' > Platonism. All universal self-introspective machine should be able to > discover that. It is what I like in comp, it preserves the mystery. It even > cleans it from the ten thousand superstitions. > > > Bruno > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/> > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---