Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 2009/2/11 Jack Mallah <jackmal...@yahoo.com <mailto:jackmal...@yahoo.com>>
>     --- On Mon, 2/9/09, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com
>     <mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>      > Also I still don't understand how I could be 30 years old and not
>     4, there are a lot more OM of 4 than 30... it is the argument you
>     use for 1000 years old, I don't see why it can hold for 30 ?
>     Quentin, why would the measure of 4 year olds be "a lot more" than
>     the measure of 30 year olds?  I have already explained that the
>     effect of differentiation (eg by learning) is exactly balanced by
>     the increased number of versions to sum over (the N/N explanation)
>     and the effect of child mortality is small.
> I don't get it. Why should the "measure" suddenly decrease at 80 (or 
> 100) years old ? Why not 30 ? Why not 4 ?
> Also this is still assuming ASSA and does not take in accound that my 
> next momemt is not a random momemt (with high measure) against all 
> momemts, but a random momemt again all momemts that have my current 
> moment as memories/previous. Even if being Napoleon at the age of 30 
> would have a measure 10^30 higher than any individual measure of momemts 
> that has composed me so far... I'm not Napoleon at age 30, my next 
> moment will never be Napoleon at age 30 and never will and that changes 
> everything. I know that in 1 minute, it will be 1 minute later from now 
> whatever the measure of now and in one minute is.
> Also Stathis as a point, you said in the A1/A2 (A) vs B case that A as 2 
> times the measure of B... But B will be with probabilty 1... does B feel 
> less real ? less conscious (that would contradict the assumption B was a 
> conscious moment). If the measure doesn't change anything to these 
> attributes... then however small this measure is as long as it is not 
> striclty null, the experienced moment will be real... as real as the 
> real here and now is.

Indeed there seems to be a conflict between MWI of QM and the feeling of 
consciousness.  QM  evolves unitarily to preserve total probability, which 
implies that the splitting into different quasi-classical subspaces reduces the 
measure of each subspace.  But there's no perceptible diminishment of 
consciousness.  I think this is consistent with the idea that consciousness is 
  computation, since in that case the computation either exists or it doesn't. 
Two copies don't increase the measure of a computation and reducing it's vector 
in Hilbert space doesn't diminish it.

Brent Meeker

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to