On 12/12/2013 4:18 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 December 2013 13:07, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:


    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.


That's all true, and QM and SR have been known to disagree on this for a long time, I believe. I doubt that anyone would try to identify observer moments with snapshots or foliations (especially if they're generated in arithmetic, of course)


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


I'd like to know how watertight that result is. IIRC they were looking for a particular type of granularity - was it to do with the holographic principle?

The result was lack of frequency dispersion for gamma rays. So it was assuming some interaction between photons and the discrete units of spacetime. That seems pretty tight.

Brent

I believe it rules out some theories (LQG?) which assume space-time is granular (in a particular sense...) ? I would like to know more about this.

--
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