Breuno said, " If not you would give to consciousness the ability to suppress branches in the quantum multiverse (like with the wave collapse), "
Exactly what I am asking. Is this a possibility? Richard On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > Richard, > > On 26 Apr 2011, at 16:08, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > Bruno, > > If DM results in a cosmic consciousness that can make choices, > could not it choose to select a single world from the many possible worlds? > Richard Ruquist > > > Suppose that you are read (scanned) at Brussels, and reconstituted in W and > M. Your consciousness will select W, in W, and will select M, in M. Both > happenings will happen, if I can say. > > You can decompose a "choice of going to M" into such a duplication + > killing yourself in W, or better: disallowing the reconstitution to be done > in W. Likewise, you can choose to go to M, by deciding to "not take a plane > for W, nor for any other places". That is why a choice is possible in the > MW, through a notion of normal world (or most probable relative world) that > you can influence by the usual "determinist" means. If not you would give to > consciousness the ability to suppress branches in the quantum multiverse > (like with the wave collapse), or even less plausible, to suppress the > existence of computations in the arithmetical world, which is as impossible > as suppressing the existence of a number. > So the choices are relative to the state you are in, but even the cosmic > consciousness cannot chose between being me and someone else. It can, or has > to be both. > > Bruno > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > >> >> On 25 Apr 2011, at 19:50, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 4/25/2011 7:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 23 Apr 2011, at 17:26, John Mikes wrote: >>>> >>>> Brent wrote (and thanks for the reply): >>>>> >>>>> (JM):...In such view "Random" is "I don't know", Chaos >>>>> is: "I don't know" and stochastic is sort of a random. ..." >>>>> >>>>> BM: Not necessarily. Why not free-up your mind to think wider and >>>>> include the thought that some randomness may be intrinsic, not the result >>>>> of >>>>> ignorance of some deeper level? >>>>> >>>> >>>> OK. (BM = Brent Meeker, here, not me). But I agree with Brent, and a >>>> perfect example of such intrinsic randomness is a direct consequence of >>>> determinism in the computer science. That is what is illustrated by the >>>> iteration of self-multiplication. Most observers, being repeatedly >>>> duplicated into W and M, will have not only random history (like >>>> WWMMMWMMMWWWWWMWMMWWM ...) but a majority will have incompressible >>>> experience, in the sense of Chaitin. Self-duplication gives an example of >>>> abrupt indeterminacy (as opposed to other long term determinist chaotic >>>> behavior). >>>> >>>> In particular, the empiric infered QM indeterminacy confirms one of the >>>> most startling feature of digital mechanism: that if we look below our >>>> computationalist subtitution level , our computations (our sub-level >>>> computations) are random. >>>> >>> >>> This is a consequence of the no-cloning theorem, which in turn is a >>> consequence of unitary evolution of the wf. It is curious that the >>> deterministic process at the wf level implies randomness at the level of >>> conscious experience. >>> >> >> This is easily explained by the digital mechanist assumption, through >> self-duplication. No need of QM, except for a confirmation of comp. >> Note that he non cloning theorem is itself a consequence of digital >> mechanism. In fact all the weirdness of quantum mechanics are obvious in >> digital mechanism (DM, which does not postulate QM). Indeed DM entails first >> person indeterminacy, first person plural indeterminacy (many worlds), first >> person non locality, and it is an "easy" exercise to show that it entials >> non cloning of matter, and non emulability of matter (and thus the falsity >> of digital physics a priori). >> >> It is still an open problem if unitarity follows from comp, as it should >> if both DM and QM are correct. But the room for unitarity is already there, >> because the logic of arithmetical observability by machine/numbers is indeed >> a quantum logic. Comp can be said to already implies that the bottom >> physicalness is symmetrical and non clonable. The arithmetical qubit cannot >> be cloned nor erased (nor emulated by a digital machine, and this is perhaps >> not confirmed by QM!). >> >> Bruno Marchal >> >> 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. >> >> > > -- > 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 > 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-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.
