# Re: first person indeterminacy

```
On 15 Mar 2011, at 22:59, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:```
```
```
I do not follow the relationship between replication and the movie, sorry.
```
OK.

```
My naive viewpoint is that after duplicating there are two different first person views that are not related to each other any more,
```
```
That's correct (assuming comp). The question is what do you predict, about your future subjective experience, before the duplication is done.
```

```
```well they have the same diary before duplicating but that's it.
```
```
```
And they have different diaries after! And you can predict this before the duplication, and you expect to survive (assuming comp). So you know in advance that both copy will describe specific but different outcome (like W or M). So you cannot predict which one specifically with certainty in advance (if you predict W, the one in M will understand that was wrong), and vice versa. By comp, they have both the right of asserting that they are "Evgenii Rudnyi".
```

```
So if someone multiplicate 2^(16180 * 10000) copies, then there are that number of first person views that are however again independent from each other.
```
```
Sure. So they can predict that they will be in front of some random image. And then this is repeated 24 times per second during 1 our and one half, so they can predict some random noise, or white snow for that period of time. Only few exception will be deluded by seeing "Space Odyssey (say)". Those will correspond to "white rabbits events", with probability = 1/ 2^(16180*10000*90*60*24)
```

```
So I still do not see the difference with the situation that I have described. When I travel to somewhere there is some nonzero probability that I awake in some other place and I have just to ask where I am.
```
```
Exactly. That was the point. That is the first person indeterminacy. The only difference, is that in the travel example, you might have to just ask where, because you are not aware of the "protocol" in its entirety, but in the comp duplication, (like in the quantum example) you are aware of the whole protocol, and still completely undecided about where you will feel to be personally reconstituted.
```
OK?

Bruno

```
```
on 15.03.2011 18:14 Bruno Marchal said the following:
```
```
Hi Evgenii,

Sorry for the answer's delay, but I am rather busy for March, so I am
slowed down.

```
```Please ask, if this is not clear for you.
```
```
Well, if we assume that duplication happens in an unconsciousness
state, then I do not see much difference. By the way, in Astérix &
Obélix Take On Caesar there is an episode not that far from your
example. It is also available on YouTube

In the movie it went quite well.
```
```
OK :) Note that in this sequence apparently the copies count for
nothing and are rather easily eliminated!

```
```
```
```(*) Which I have already illustrated with the experience where
you
```
```
```
```

Imagine a big screen made of 16180 * 10000 pixels, each pixel capable
of being black or white.

Do you agree that there is 2^(16180 * 10000) images possible. OK? (I
can explain this if someone ask).

Then instead of duplicating you in two. I polyplicate you in 2^(16180
* 10000), and put each of the resulting 'you' in front of each
possible image on the screen.

(For quantum Many worlder, this can be realized in practice, by
putting you in front of a quantum screen with each pixel state
determined by a quantum bit).

Then I reiterated that (giant) multiplication for each of those
2^(16180 * 10000) copies of you, and this 24 times by second (the
typical movie lapses) during 90 minutes (the typical duration of a
movie). I can again to that in practice by sending a beam of quantum
bit (in the state 0+1, and correlating the pixels accordingly).

The question is asked to you before the first polyplication, and is:
what do you expect to see among the following:

```
```

-A constant black screen A constant white screen -A silent
version of the first 90 minutes of 2001 Space Odyssey -A silent
version of the first 90 minutes of 2001 Space Odyssey with
spanish subtitle - Apparent white noise, but actually a
description of PI in binary -Apparent white noise.
```
```
Is it clearer? What is your answer? Do you see the point?

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-list@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-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to