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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to