On 12/12/2013 2:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 December 2013 06:00, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:


    On 12/12/2013 1:36 AM, LizR wrote:
    On 12 December 2013 17:00, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com
    <mailto:yann...@gmail.com>> wrote:

        Liz,

        In forking MWI worlds, your ID is constantly changing as it depends on 
various
        quantum states.
        Your detailed nature is never duplicated. Every fork is a change from 
your
        previous state.
        If comp supports MWI, why should your ID ever stay the same
        since you are constantly forking with or without the doctor.
        Rich

    Yes, I wondered about that. However you look at it, digital consciousness 
involves
    constant state changes, at the substitution level and below. You end up with
    something like David Deutsch's snapshots or Fred Hoyle's pigeon holes, or 
someone,
    not sure who's "capsule" model of identity. It's all very Heraclitean!

    Of course in a (gasp!) materialist model, there are no "snapshots".  The
    computations that produce consciousness are distributed in space and time 
and one
    "thought" overlaps another.

Sorry, but I don't quite see what you mean here. How does being distributed in space and time avoid snapshots? You can still split space-time into snapshots in the MWI (or "foliate" space-time in relativity, I guess) in a manner that usefully explains extended processes - they just extend across sequential snapshots / foliations. Digital consciousness would presumably have a clock at some level, and steps, but that might be far above the level of MWI snapshots, or it might be far below it - space-time itself might be digital, which would automatically allow higher level processes to be (in the sense required for comp).

Are you just saying that "observer moments" can't be identified with "MWI 
snapshots" ?

Yes, but not JUST that. Foliation of spacetime is not unique. So no matter how slice it, a computational state that is extended in space and time can't be captured on a slice. It's on multiple slices and so it can overlap with other computational states and this implies an inherent order. Of course this wouldn't apply if spacetime is itself discrete, but assuming that would be at a much finer level than computational states then the spacetime relations would supply continuity to the computational states.

And it seems experimentally that spacetime is not discrete even below the 
Planck length.

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.

--
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