You mean experiences are purely qualitative, so there cannot be two identical experiences rather, if identical they must be one (by Leibniz's identity of indiscernibles) and not two. But then there are no "experiencers", only sequences of experiences which may have some unifying property and which may share elements with other sequences.

Brent

On 9/2/2013 8:55 PM, Dennis Ochei wrote:
"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, smi...@zonnet.nl <javascript:> wrote:
    > Citeren Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au <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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3222/6632 - Release Date: 09/02/13


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to