On Oct 29, 6:44 pm, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 30, 2011, at 3:17 AM, Nick Prince <nickmag.pri...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > Maybe you are thinking of Tegmark level 1 or level 2 type multiverses > > here, in which case I agree. What I was doing in my analysis was > > thinking about QM type 3 multiverses only. Let's pretend that these > > are the only variety for the moment, then my analysis does indicate > > that cul de sacs arise only if the unitary development during > > interactions follow the ideal measurement prescription. You can see > > this because in the times between the action of operator Mdev and Mc > > the cat is alive in both branches but destined to die in one of them. > > This has to be true for both ist and 3person points of view because > > there is nowhere for the consciousness to go. If you are going to > > include the other types of multiverse then yes, all sorts of > > possibilities open up. Indeed dreaming cats would be included too. > > Moreover, it seems to me from Bruno's Sane papers that ist person > > indeterminacy is non local in space and in time so, I guess in > > principle it's possible according to that reasoning, that the cat > > could find a contiuation of its consciousness in some other cat far > > off in the future in some universe. If we restrict ourselves to level > > 3 type QM branching of fungible universes then perfect functioning > > flask gassing mechanisms would provide cul de sacs. > > > I was hoping that this might give a start to some form of extra > > support (although not a proof )of the no cul de sac conjecture because > > in the limit as the number of degrees of freedom in the devices > > introduce more and more branches due to evolutions of the form (4) > > (which could possibly be infinite linear combinations), then perhaps > > once the environment was included as well, the limit would ensure that > > the cul de sacs were avoided. If we factor in other level 1 and 2 > > type universes then this only helps the argument. > > I didn't think that level 1 and 2 multiverses were any richer in their > variety than level 3. > > -- Stathis Papaioannou- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
I'm not sure whether they are or not. What matters is where will my next observer moment come from? For now let's say it's just from type 3 QM unitary evolutions. Then in this case with the perfect interaction prescription usually used to describe measurement/ interactions then you can have cul de sacs. Nick -- 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.
