"Qualitatively identical experiencers are also numerically identical" is how i sum this position up
On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 4:39:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 8/14/2013 7:48 AM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > Citeren Russell Standish <[email protected] <javascript:>>: > > > >> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 05:26:41PM -0700, Pierz wrote: > >>> I need clarification of the significance of quantum theory to > determining > >>> the *past*. I remember having read or heard that the past itself is > subject > >>> to quantum uncertainty. Something like the idea that the past is > determined > >>> only to to the extent that it is forced to be so by the state of the > >>> present, if that makes sense. In other words, there may be more than > one > >>> history that could lead to the current state of the world. Let's say > it > >>> might have been one way or another and then we make a measurement > which > >>> resolves this question, we are 'forcing' the past to be one way or > another. > >>> In MWI, that would be saying my 'track' through the multiverse is > ambiguous > >>> in both directions, both into the future and 'behind me' so to speak. > I'm > >>> unclear on this and what it precisely means. I seem to recall that it > was > >>> critical in calculations Hawking made about the early universe - at a > >>> certain point these uncertainties became critical and it meant that it > was > >>> no longer possible to say that the universe had definitely been one > way or > >>> another. Can someone clarify this for me? > >>> > >> > >> This idea of the past not being determinate until such a time as a > >> measurement in the present forces the issue is fundamental to my > >> interpretation of QM. It is also related to the Quantum Eraser. Saibal > >> Mitra has written some stuff on this too - maybe he'd like to comment? > >> > >> On the other hand, I don't think this view is particularly > >> mainstream. Even many worlds people tend to think that the multiverse > >> has decohered in the past, and that there is a matter of fact which > >> branch we are in, even if we're ignorant of that fact. > >> > >> I can't comment on Hawking's work, unfortunately, as I'm not aware of > that. > >> > >> Cheers > >> -- > > > > > > Yes, I would agree with the view taken by Russell here. It has > interesting consequences > > for any future artificial intelligence who can reset its memory, as I > explain here: > > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3825 > > > > So, if you reset your memory at random with some probability p and you > also do that in > > case of an impending disaster, then if you find yourself in a state > where you know that > > your memory has been reset and you need to reload your memory, the > reason why the memory > > has been reset (routine random memory reset or you were facing an > impending disaster), > > is no longer determined, you are identical in the different branches > until you find out > > the reason. > > > > So, while you are firmly in the classical regime and therefore you won't > see any changes > > in the probabilities of the outcomes of these sorts of experiments > relative to what you > > would expect classically, the interpretation of how these probabilities > arise is > > different; while it is worthwhile to do these memory resettings in a > "single classical > > world" it wouldn't be worthwhile. > > > > The article I wrote (it was just an essay for FQXI competition which got > the attention > > from New Scientist), is actually rather simple, it treats the problem in > a > > non-relativistic way, which is a bit unnatural (the times at which > things happen in the > > different different branches seems to matter). You can easily generalize > this, also you > > can consider thought experiments involving false memories that may be > correct memories > > in different branches etc. etc. > > Hmm. It seems that "erasing your memory" would encompass a lot more than > what is commonly > referred to as memory. Quantum erasure requires erasing all the > information that is > diffused into the environment. So erasing one's memory would imply > quantum erasure of all > the information about your past - not just the infinitesimal bit that you > can consciously > recall. > > Brent > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
