Hi Saibal,I think you preach the choir. Except perhaps for Stephen, most of us agree that time, and the whole physicalness is a 'collective hallucination', or a first person (plural) mind construct. There is even a plant which can make you feel, in some way, that time (and space) does not exist, and does not need to exist for being conscious (and that's a quite amazing hallucination by itself).
But extracting "immortality" from the fact that the fundamental reality is a block static structure might disappoint many "immortality amateur". People hope for explicit continuation, and some kind of continuity. Now the block arithmetical static structure is so rich that the immortality question is only a complex problem which needs progress in the math (notably on the arithmetical hypostasis) and all that.
In any case, science is not a priori wishful thinking, so we have to say: let us compute or let us see. It might also depend on our ability to convince our descendants to build some omega points in our neighborhood, or to rely on the whole arithmetical structure, etc.
The real practical question is, I think, can we avoid unpleasant lasting states? Does that exist? How to make the probability lower, etc.
Bruno On 03 Apr 2011, at 02:27, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
I think we are now making hidden assumptions about the nature of time, namely that it "really exists", and then we are trying to argue that you can still have immortality (in different senses). However, it is far more natural to assume that time does not exist and then you get immortality (in the sense of my conscious states that have a finite memory always existing) in a far more straightforward way.That time does not exist is a quite natural assumption. To see this, assume that it does exist. But then, since time evolution is given by a unitary transform, the past still exists in a scrambled way in the present (when taking into account parallel universes). E.g. your past brain state of ten years ago can still be described in terms of the physical variables as they exist today. Of course such a description is extremely complicated involving the physical state of today's multiverse within a sphere of ten lightyears.Then assuming that the details of implementation does not affect consciousness (as long as the right program is being run), one has to conclude that your past state of coinsciousess exists also today. You could therefore just as well assume that time does not exist, as the two possibilities are operationally equivalent.Saibal Citeren Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>:On 01 Apr 2011, at 20:06, Telmo Menezes wrote:On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 7:20 PM, <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:QTI is trivially false, because it is a paradoxical result, similar to an alleged proof that 1 + 1 = 3. You don't need to check to proof to see thatit must be wrong.You could apply that exact same argument to any hypothesis that soundsridiculous to you.The reason why QTI is a paradoxical is because we have a finite memory. The class of all observers that can represent you is some finite set of machine states, so you can't have any memories that exceeds a certain limit. Therefore, "you" can't live forever, stay the same person who then alsosubjectively experiences an unbounded time evolution.The paradox only exists if you disregard that he have the ability to forget selectively. Since I have only lived a finite amount of timeand my memory is finite, there is a finite set of machine states thatis sufficient to represent "me" (whatever that means). I could conceivably live forever and selectively forget, while always maintaining the core states that preserve my identity.Indeed. Nick Prince made clear that he would accept a notion of surviving as an infant, with plausibly less souvenirs.Also, we might survive reconstituted in a future with technologies making it possible to add more memories (hard disk). The subjective time grows in a non computable way (to say it grows a lot) from the memory available. It is a sort of busy beaver function.We already save some neuron memory space by using agenda, books and computers.Then in a steady universe, we might just develop indefinitely growing brain. In some sense, "our" brain has grown a lot since we were amoebas.Then we might become immortal by losing or making sleeping some neurons, for example the neurons which handle the hallucination of time. That the mystic way, and some plant are fascinating with that respect.There are many path, many possibilities. It is a rich and complex subject.Saibal is right on this: if we keep a fixed limited brain, we will stop or cycle. But cycling forever can still be considered as a form of immortality!In Platonia, all occur. But it might depend on us which one can be made more relatively probable. If we teach enough arithmetic to our children, the most probable will be sorts of "Tipler-omega points". I think.Brunohttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .Saibal Citeren Nick Prince <nickmag.pri...@googlemail.com>:In Russell’s book there is a section on “Arguments against QTI” And I want to put forward some issues arising from this.It seems that (if MWI is true) we live in world(s) in which we appear to live a finite, small lifetime of around 70 years. From the many discussions on this list, it also seems to me that, this is the single biggest argument (that I can understand) which points to the QTI beingfalse. Unfortunately it appears that the whole ASSA/RSSA debate -which might have been a candidate for clarifying the issue - turns outto be a confusing (to me anyway) and polarising approach. So is QTI false?Russell does put forward a possible solution in his book. He suggests the idea that as memory fades with dementia then perhaps the conscious mind becomes so similar to that of a newborn - or even unborn - babythat perhaps “a diminishing?” consciousness always finds an appropriate route (in some branch) to avoid a cul de sac event. (This is one possible form of the No Cul De Sac Conjecture =NCDSC) To avoid the cul de sac event, there would surely have to be acritical stage whereby consciousness diminishes and reaches a formof cusp at the point of lapsing into non existence and thereby requiring the necessity of an extension route or branch to anotherconsistent universe. In short, from the third person POV, the person dies but from the first person -(now primitive) consciousness – state, there is rebirth. I am thinking that before we get to the croaking Amoeba there is a discontinuity in what we understand as consciousness– at least the form that applies to the NCDSC.Now if all this were to be the case, then maybe it says something very specific about the substrate on which consciousness runs. There wouldbe something special about the architecture which the substrateemploys to implement consciousness because it relies on a certain modeof decay, facilitating the branching to a new born baby having anappropriate structure (portal?) to secure a consistent extension ofthe consciousness into another branch. Unless a computer could simulate such a special substrate then it could not be used toimplement consciousness. This would mean that it would be wise to sayno to the Doctor! – Comp might be false?The Turing principle (p135 of David Deutsch’s book – “the Fabric ofReality”) would imply that, a universal machine could simulate thephysical structure of brains in such a way so as to be able to act asa medium whereby, if the above argument is possible, consistentextensions of conscious physical observers (persons) could avoid cul de sacs. But until we can understand the nature of what consciousness is, we are stumped as to how a computer can be programmed to implement it. However some alien civilizations may have known these techniques for ages now, thereby perhaps explaining why we each have lived even as long as we now perceive we have. A stronger statement would be that if universal virtual reality generators are physically possible, thenthey must be built somewhere in some universes! But supposing the above (reincarnational) speculation was false insome way. In that case, I have yet to see a convincing argument as tohow the the no cul de sac conjecture can be reconciled with peopleliving to great ages. Whatever sampling assumption is applied, thefacts are that we don’t typically see people reaching ages greaterthan 100+ yrs). Therefore either QTI is false or people just don’t get old! Rather, the special physical conditions of death associated with dementia or oxygen starvation of the brain, facilitate continuedextensions of consciousness by branching into worlds where we supervene over new born babies (or something – animals, aliens?) -accidental deaths of people of any “normal ages” we can think aboutcould of course be accommodated by the NCDSC). The mechanics of such reincarnational transitions would beinteresting to speculate about since I see this as the only way outfor a QTI. Nick Prince --You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups"Everything List" group.To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org .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.--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.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 firstname.lastname@example.org.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 email@example.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.