I'm replying to this bit seperately since Bruno touched on a different issue 
than the others have.  My reply to the main "measure again '10" thread will 
follow under the original title.

--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> I would also not say yes to a computationalist doctor, because my 
> consciousness will be related to the diameter of the simulated neurons, or to 
> the redundancy of the gates, etc.  (and this despite the behavior remains 
> unaffected). This entails also the existence of zombie. If the neurons are 
> very thin , my "absolute" measure can be made quasi null, despite my behavior 
> remains again non affected.

This relates to what I call the 'problem of size', namely: Does the size of the 
components affect the measure?  The answer is not obvious.

My belief is that, given that it is all made of quantum stuff, the size will 
not matter - because the set of quantum variables involved actually doesn't 
change if you leave some of them out of the computer - they are still 
parameters of the overall system.

But there is an important and obvious way in which size does matter - the size 
of the amplitude of the wavefunction, the square of which is proportional to 
measure according to the Born Rule.

I would say that if we really had a classical world and made a computer out of 
"classical water" waves, the measure might be proportional to the square of the 
amplitude of those waves.  I don't know - I have different proposals for how 
the actual Born Rule comes about, and depending on how it works, it could come 
out either way.

I don't think there is any experimental evidence that size matters.  But some 
might disagree.  If they do, there are a few points they could make:

- Maybe big brains have more measure.  This could help explain why we are men 
and not mice.

- Maybe in the future, people will upload their brains into micro-electronic 
systems.  If those have small measure, it could explain the "Doomsday argument" 
- if the future people have low measure, it makes sense that we are not in that 

- Maybe neural pathways that recieve more reinforcement get bigger and give 
rise to more measure.  This could result in increased effective probablility to 
observe more coincidences in your life than would be expected by chance.  Now, 
coincidences often are noticed by us and we tend to think there are many.  I 
think this has more to do with psychology than physics - but who knows?


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