On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:
> On 5/19/2012 2:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > Alex, > > One way I see of 'escaping' quantum immortality is to assume elements of > the simulation argument ( http://www.simulation-argument.com/ ) are > correct. The simulation argument supposes that the computational capacity > of civilizations eventually reaches the point where they can run minds on > these new computational substrates. Existing in a virtual reality provides > much greater freedom for possible experiences, as well as much greater > speeds. Signals in electronic circuits are about 1,000,000 times faster > than the electrochemical signals of neurons. Thus is may be feasible to > experience a 70-year life time in a little more than half an hour. Members > of such advanced civilizations could experience who life times in the same > way we might watch an episode of a TV show. > > > Hi Jason, > > Would not the experience of a 70-year life time require the > computation of the simulation of that entire life time? > Yes. > How long would it take a top of the line computer to generate that > simulation? > The sensory input which is fed into the simulated mind is far smaller than the amount of processing and data required to represent the mind. > It is not "a little more than half an hour". Talk to someone that is > involved in CGI production sometime about how much time and computer power > it takes to generate a 2 hour movie... > Computers grow in capability by a factor of 1000 every 10-15 years. It is easy to overlook the possibilities that come with such an exponential trend. > > > > Assuming this is physically possible, then it is very likely (somewhere in > the many branches) that it already has happened, somewhere. If it has > happened, then it means we cannot know with certainty who we really are. > At any time we might wake up and find ourselves to be a future human, some > alien being, a god-like super mind, etc. Much like a youtube video has > many viewers, your life may have many experiencers. When it ends, it is > impossible to know who you might be. > > > Does this not assume that 1) there is really only one version of "you" > This follows from digital mechanism. (the computational theory of mind) > that has the experience and 2) that the experiences for each observer are > separable from each other. > I am not sure what you mean by the above. > You are describing a collection of solipsists that operate under the > delusion that what they each experience as "other people" are just empty > shells. > They are real people somewhere, and you might as well consider them as such. If they are simulated to a sufficient level of accuracy, they too would be conscious. Also, the simulation argument does not preclude "multi-player" simulations, so when you wake up from this simulation you might those "players" who served the roll as someone you knew in the simulated life. You might even try each of the roles yourself, so you could serve the roles of multiple people or all the people in the simulation at once. This is also the result from merging / sharing experiences of those who experienced different lives within the simulation. > > > > Where this comes in regards to MWI immortality, is that even if ancestor > simulations make up a small percentage of the explanations for your present > moment of awareness, (let's say 2%), eventually I think these extensions > become more probable than continued survival via strange or unlikely MWI > possibilities. Also, there are reasons to believe the percentage might > even be over 50%. Consider that it is predicted by 2045, $1000 could buy a > computer a billion times more powerful than every human combined. In a > short period of time, such a computer could generate more "human > experience" than all the humans who have ever lived biological lives. > (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_made_by_Ray_Kurzweil ) > > > I still do not understand why the number of possible "beings that have > experience" is only a finite number. > Where did I say this? > > > Jason > > On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 3:24 AM, alexalex <alexmka...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Taking the qunatum immortality argument as a fact what do you think >> about the following implication? >> >> If you'll be conscious only in those universes where you'll keep on >> living then most surely you'll watch all your brothers and sisters, >> friends and foes DIE! You often think about it? It strikes and as mind >> bogling that with a high degree of accuracy, I'll experience my >> brothers and sisters go into oblivion and there's nothing I can do >> about it. It's like a prison. >> >> Thanks! >> >> -- >> > > -- > Onward! > > Stephen > > "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." > ~ Francis Bacon > > -- > 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.
