On 3/22/2012 4:47 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/22/2012 1:31 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:

        >> This illustrates the problem I have with your ideas, it's
        not your mathematics it's the assumption you make right at
        the start which is the foundation for everything else.

    > Which assumption?

Your assumption that if a identical copy of you is made everything may seen identical to a third party but to itself, to the copy and the original, they would somehow have different viewpoints even if everything they saw was the same and they remained identical. I think that is just plain wrong. Lately you seem to be equivocating somewhat on this point and everybody has a right to change their mind, but if you do then you'll have to rewrite your proof from page 1 because that assumption was important.

    > Those admit precise and simple definition, related to the
    duplication and multiplication thought experience.
    First person = content of a diary bring in the duplication devices.

OK, but the original and the copy will both write in their diaries "I walked into the duplicating chamber, the machine was turned on and a copy of me appeared right in front of me face to face", the copy and the original agree on what occurred, so according to you the first person perspective, the one that both you and I believe is most important, is identical; so there is only one perspective, one consciousness.

I don't think Bruno disagreed with this. I know I didn't. The one consciousness only becomes two when there is something different - in the perception of the outside (Washington vs Moscow) or some random internal change. Your thought experiment shows that comp implies that persons bodies can be duplicated without duplicating their consciousness (at least for a moment or two). But as I said I don't see that this invalidates Bruno's argument which I take to be that quantum uncertainty can be modeled by uncertainty in personal identity.
Hi Brent,

Could you offer some sketch of how quantum uncertainty can be modeled by uncertainty in personal identity? The uncertainty of QM follows from the mathematical properties of canonical conjugates (roughly, there exists a Fourier transformation between them) and the general non-commutativity of observables (roughly, as they have complex number valued amplitudes). Quantum uncertainty is not "just randomness" or stochasticity, the evolution of QM systems is the template of a deterministic process. It is just that it is impossible to recover the information required to make a local prediction that makes it seem "classically random" (aka decoherence). I think that we are taking the "branching tree" analogy used by many to explain the many worlds interpretation way too literally here... We should disabuse ourselves of that concept. The uncertainty generated by the copy and paste operations of computation follows from the fissioning of the first person sense of self, so it is indeed generates a "branching tree graph" IFF we ignore cul-de-sacs and other delete operations, cycles and non-monotic relations. Additionally, we assume that conservation laws, which would be "no new rules or data" restrictions for computations. Where is the bridge connecting these concepts? What about the fact that intercourse between humans create "babies", which would be entirely new minds? How do they fix into these scheme?



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