On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Jack Mallah <jackmal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.
What about if half of your neurons were 1/2 their normal size, and the other
half were twice their normal size? How would this be predicted to effect
What about beings who have higher resolution senses, and thus a greater
possibility for variation in senses due to the higher number of possible
> 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.
It is an interesting question I hadn't considered. Given the relative state
interpretation, how large is the system really? Is it bounded by one's
skull, one's nerve cells, one's light cone?
> 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.
But the mice are mice, and would admit as much if you asked one and it could
respond. We're also not whales.
> - 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 era.
Maybe we are already in that era. Also given we would be effectively
immortal, in the long run, the experiences of uploaded minds should greatly
outweigh organic ones, if they engage in game-worlds for leisure.
> - 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
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