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 also thinking that Level 1 and 2 universes may not be infinite in
extent which limits the possible observer moments I have access to. I
have argued before on the list that the question of topology of the
"universe" is far from clear. Those OM available from level 3 are
possibly more directly accessible ( if MWI is true in the right form).


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to