Bruno, you deal in hard words. I still could not 'generalize' the "BETTER" etc. as views applied for our (narrow, present, limited) HUMAN circumstances, with respect to our actual interests and possibilities - our "culture". I had a discussion about 'torture' (US politix) and my opponent asked: is to cut off an arm not torture, if it is in the interest of saving the rest of the body?
Similarly: "...normality made possible by the QM statistics..." *Norms?* of what and how etablished? *QM* as basis for norms? *statistix* as the count of a kind WITHIN the chosen items from a selected cut - where another (maybe larger?) cut might produce a different number? One cannot exercise the statistical numbers on 'infinite' totality. And the big one: *E T H I X* (pardon me the 'x') - a cultural religion - of the arbitrary good/bad decisions, (Plotinus's naive example fits in it perfectly). I consider your "...But frankly this *is* speculation, and the main ethics will remain "respect the others and yourself" or things like that...." as for a 'milder term': for human morality. (It is tricky to differentiate ethics vs. morality). These are items of the human mentality - not influencing the totality in general, (however our influence can be shown how we may change nature). Then again it is a question: would have been nature different at all, or our inference was the necessary thing in the 'natural process'? I am totally against the use of a conditional term - si nisi non esset perfectum quodlibet esset - and who knows what is 'perfect'? Not our human ways, that is for sure, do they serve our 'survival' or 'good', or not. John M On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 9:36 PM, M.A. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > *I don't know about Bruno, but I'm just referring to the ordinary > person's attempts to improve his life in such categories as: love, health, > creative fulfillment, prosperity, wisdom and so forth. m.a.* > ** > ** > ** > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* John Mikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *Sent:* Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:30 AM > *Subject:* Re: Consciousness and free will > > m.a. and Bruno: > > *"BETTER OUTCOME"???* > better for whom? better than what? > Judging human? > > JohnM > > On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> Le 05-déc.-08, à 14:26, M.A. a écrit : >> >> > Bruno, >> > Is it possible that as all my copies strive towards better >> > outcomes, the entire group advances? >> >> >> Yes (assuming QM), thanks to the notion of normality made possible by >> the QM statistics. Hopefully so with the comp hyp, but strictly >> speaking this is not yet proved. >> >> >> >> > If the worst are always proportionately opposite to the best, and the >> > best keep improving themselves, don't they pull the worst up with >> > them? Just a hopeful thought. >> >> But with that notion of normality, the worst should not be >> proportionately opposite to the best. If you decide to improve >> yourself, all your "you" will improve, except the unlucky one who will >> get some "white rabbits" on their way. >> >> Here, both comp and QM, is like classical statistic, and roughly >> speaking you can expect all outcomes to be possible, but with *highly* >> different proportion. If you decide to do a cup of coffee, in almost >> all histories you will drink coffee, they will be just a "little >> infinity" or little measure of worlds where the coffee will taste like >> tea, or where the boiling water will freeze. >> >> I tend to think that the ethics behind QM and comp are the same usual >> ethics of the non eliminativist materialist, except that with comp, >> such ethics can be grounded on a sort of general "modesty" principle. >> (They will be opportunity to come back on that modesty issue). >> >> A priori, the comp theory of Good/Bad is NOT like in Plotinus theory. >> Plotinus believed that if someone do something BAD, the same amount of >> BAD will occur to him, soon or later. He gives a curious example which >> is no doubt a bit shocking to our ears: he says that if a man rapes a >> woman then ... he will be reincarnated into a woman and be raped by a >> man! I think there is something true in that comment, but not if taken >> literally. With comp, I can speculate on common laws for heat, love and >> money: they could obey to similar global conservation principle >> together with local creation rule. But frankly this *is* speculation, >> and the main ethics will remain "respect the others and yourself" or >> things like that. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: Bruno Marchal >> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 3:44 AM >> >> Subject: Re: Consciousness and free will >> >> >> >> >> >> On 04 Dec 2008, at 00:29, M.A. wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Hi Bruno, >> >>> I'm quoting your response to an older post because I >> >>> have a residual question. If "I" improve my ability to select the >> >>> best future outcomes, don't "I" also choose the worst ones according >> >>> to MWI and the rule of sum-over-histories? I seem to be competing >> >>> against myself. M.A. >> >> >> >> Assuming just Everett QM, there is a notion of normality and >> >> classicality which can be derived from the quantum evolution. This is >> >> expalined by david Deutsch, but also the "decoherence theory". So, >> >> when you take a (classical) decision you will act accordingly in the >> >> vast majority of your histories, and very few version of you will >> >> accidentally be doing the opposite. >> >> Taking into account the comp. Hyp. such "decoherence" has to be >> >> refined a priori, and this leads to a gallery of open problems. >> >> Both with QM without collapse, and with comp, such normality is hard >> >> to justified from the first person views when we are "near death". >> >> This leads to even more complex questions. I can only say that I >> >> don't know what happens, but I do expect, some probable "jump", >> >> guided by some theoretical computer science intuition. Some >> >> backtracking of experience, and renormalization of probabilities >> >> could also occur. >> >> Many-histories is not "all histories", or it is "all histories" but >> >> with different relative weight. We can't use MW for escaping our >> >> "responsibilities", I think. >> >> >> >> >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>>> - >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> -~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ >> >>>>> 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]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> >>>>> For more options, visit this group >> >>>>> at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en >> >>>>> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
