2013/9/3 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>

> On 9/3/2013 6:14 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
>
>> Yes, that's also my favorite way of thinking about this, you are
>> precisely that what you experience at any one time, and that may well
>> include memories of the past.
>>
>> What was discussed earlier in this thread about decoherence, is only
>> revelevant to explaining why you don't get macroscopic manifestations of
>> typical quantum phenomena like interference phenomena or violations of
>> certain Bell's inequalities if you take serious that there are multiple
>> histories instead of a single unique one.
>>
>> What happens is that you get decoherent histories that effectively don't
>> interfere with each other. So, we can safely say that Obama winning the
>> elections was not due to macroscopically different histories leading to
>> destructive interference in Romney's vote count in Ohio.
>>
>> What one cannot say is that decoherence somehow leads to a single history
>> being selected (unless you a priori asume a collapse theory). What you get
>> is a set of macroscopically distinct histories that are decoherent relative
>> to each other, but with sufficient lack of knowledge you can be in many of
>> them simultaneously.
>>
>
> That's where this account gets muddled.  Who lacks knowledge?  There is no
> "you".


There is, the one experiencing things here and now.


>
>  This effect will not lead to probabilities behaving in a different way
>> than what you would get from classical probability theory assuming that the
>> uncertainty is due to a lack of knowledge and that in reality only ione
>> history really exists.
>>
>
> The very concept of probabilities implies there is some "you" that
> experiences them.


We don't experience the past, we remember it here and now, the only
experience an experiencer has is the here and now.

>
>
>> So, you then can't see the difference between all these histories
>> copatible with your knowledge really existing and that they don't exist.
>> But that's not a good argument (by itself) to say that they in fact don't
>> exist.
>>
>
> But if there are "all these histories" then there is no "you".
>

There is, the one experiencing things here and now.

Quentin


>
> Brent
>
>
>
>> Saibal
>>
>>
>> Citeren Dennis Ochei <do.infinit...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>  Given that we are elements that might belong to multiple sequences, there
>>> is no fact of the matter as to which sequence we belong to.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:23 AM, Dennis Ochei <do.infinit...@gmail.com>*
>>> *wrote:
>>>
>>>  Yes, exactly.
>>>>
>>>> > But then there are no "experiencers"...
>>>>
>>>> I prefer to say that experiencers are their experiences than to say
>>>> there
>>>> are no experiencers (I'm explaining my phrasing more than anything)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 11:50 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   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 wrote:
>>>>>> > Citeren Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au>:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> 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+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> .
> To post to this group, send email to 
> everything-list@googlegroups.**com<everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> .
> Visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-list<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>
> .
> For more options, visit 
> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out>
> .
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
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