On 23 May 2010, at 23:01, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/23/2010 9:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Alex, hi Quentin,
On 20 May 2010, at 15:19, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Hi,
2010/5/20 awak <mustata_a...@yahoo.com>
1. Hello everyone! I'm Alex. I'm a civil engineer with an avid
passion for
Popular Science books. I'm not a scientist, nor a native English
speaker, so
please excuse my possible inconsistencies in both Scientific logic
or
English grammar. Again, sorry if this question has already been
posed.
2. I've just finished reading Russel Standish's "Theory of
Nothing" so the
following question, concerning Quantum Immortality, has its base
in the
information found in this book.
3. From what i understand, Functionalism and Computationalism
implies that
my consciousness will follow all the world-lines where i live at a
maximum
age - this considering that there might be a limit to "Quantum
Immortality",
even though this is in contradiction with the definition of this
concept;
for the purpose my question let's just say there might be some
worlds where
i live until 200 yrs.
4. From Wikipedia : "Syncope (pronounced /ˈsɪŋkəpi/) is the
medical term for
fainting, a sudden, usually temporary, loss of consciousness
generally
caused by insufficient oxygen in the brain either through cerebral
hypoxia
or through hypotension, but possibly for other reasons. Typical
symptoms
progress through dizziness, clamminess of the skin, a dimming of
vision or
greyout, possibly tinnitus, complete loss of vision, weakness of
limbs to
physical collapse. These symptoms falling short of complete
collapse, or a
fall down, may be referred to as a syncoptic episode."
So i take this as evidence that consciousness is not continuous.
5. MY QUESTION: "Why is this possible, for me to pass out, losing my
consciousness because of cerebral hypoxia, hypotension, or because
i am hit
by someone, considering that Quantum Immortality implies continuous
consciousness"? More to that, shouldn't we find ourselves in
worlds where we
don't sleep (where we are semi-conscious just like dolphins are
because they
sleep only with half of their brains) so we don't lose
consciousness?
Quantum immortality doesn't implies continuous consciousness... it
just implies that there will always be a next moment. So you can
passed out but you will eventually wake up.
It is an eternally recurring question/objection to many-worlders. I
think Quentin is basically right, as far as we agree that QM is
correct and decoherence does its work. With DM (Digital mechanism,
actually used by QM) the math is awfully complex. All we can say is
that the measure one obeys a non boolean sort of quantum logic.
IF DM and/or QM is correct the notion of normality for relatively
computable histories (the arithmetical world-lines) makes higher
your survive a cerebral hypoxia in the normal third person sharable
common reality. For irreversible damages, like with alzheimer, or
with death, the question of the first person indeterminacy is more
complex. By a 'galois connection', you normally augment the
possibilities, but there may be jumps, amnesia, and it may depend
eventually on what you identify yourself with.
But the "jumps" can be arbitrarily long. So is a jump of 10^10yrs =
death?
By jump I was alluding to first person jumps. I do that frequently
when doing a nap. I am conscious of being somewhere, but to sleepy to
remember where and when. I am awake, and I know that the opening of my
eyes will instantaneously get me back in the flux, at some precise
point. I am always 100% sure to be at morning, in the dark, but once I
open the eyes I remember quasi instantaneously I was doing a nap, in
the day light.
Some jump can be amnesic jump, or memory recovery jump. It is a sudden
change in the subjective experience. It happens also when awakening
from a REM dream.
Concerning the UD jumps, measured in years, (with an UD time step = 1
nanosecond, say) we have that, by first person delay invariance, those
delays don't introduce any change in the subjective experience. Be it
10^10yrs, or 10^(10^10)yrs, or, if you remember omega[omega]omega
years. But keep in mind that the uncertainty measure is not on the
states, but on the histories, and from inside they have a complex
topology. It is not a boolean measure (accepting Theaetetus's theory
of knowledge and its arithmetization).
Bruno
Brent
Those 'modern theological' questions are awfully difficult, but
computer science can translate them into questions (or set of
questions) of arithmetic (in the DM theory, that is assuming we are
digitalizable machine).
Bruno
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 everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
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 everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
