On 29 Oct 2011, at 20:07, Nick Prince wrote:
On Oct 29, 6:44 pm, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 30, 2011, at 3:17 AM, Nick Prince
Maybe you are thinking of Tegmark level 1 or level 2 type
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
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
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
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
once the environment was included as well, the limit would ensure
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.
With loop gravity, I can imagine that it might be possible, although
I'm not sure. But with classical QM, even putting the cat near an
atomic bomb will not prevent the unitary evolution to have a branch
where the cat will survive. This uses continuous position and
impulsion observable, and so is rather theoretical, I agree.
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
For more options, visit this group at