On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:26 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >1. Teleportation is survivable >> > > Yes. > > >> > 2.Teleportation with a time delay is survivable, and the time delay is >> imperceptible to the person teleported >> > > Obviously. > > > 3. Duplication (teleportation to two locations: one intended and one >> unintended) is survivable, >> > > That's basically the same as #1. > > > and following duplication there is a 50% chance of finding oneself at >> the intended destination >> > > JOHN CLARK HATES PRONOUNS! Following duplication there is a 100% chance > Jason Resch will be at the intended destination. > > >> > 4. Duplication with delay changes nothing. >> > > Obviously. > > > 5. Teleportation without destroying the original is equivalent to the >> duplication with delay. >> > > Which is equivalent to duplication without delay, which is equivalent to > duplication and destroying the original, which is equivalent to duplication > and destroying the copy. > > > If someone creates a copy of you somewhere, there is a 50% chance you >> will find yourself in that alternate location. >> > > JOHN CLARK HATES PRONOUNS! If someone creates a copy of Jason Resch > somewhere, there is a 100% chance Jason Resch will find Jason Resch to be > in that alternate location. > > >> > 6. If a virtual copy of you is instantiated in a computer somewhere, >> then as in step 5, there is a 50% chance you will find yourself trapped in >> that computer simulation. >> > > JOHN CLARK HATES PRONOUNS! If a virtual copy of Jason Resch is > instantiated in a computer somewhere, then as in step 5, there is a 100% > chance Jason Resch will find Jason Resch to be trapped in that computer > simulation. > > > 7. A computer with enough time and memory, that iteratively executes all >> programs in parallel will "kidnap" everyone, since all observers everywhere >> (in all universes) will eventually find themselves to be in this computer >> > > Could be. > Do you agree that after turning this computer on, and letting it run for a long enough time (eternity let's say), there is a 100% chance John Clark will eventually find himself in this computer (as you seemed to agree in step 6)? > > > 8. There is no need to build the computer in step 7, since the >> executions of all programs exist within the relations between large >> numbers. >> > > That would only be true if everything that could exist does exist, and > maybe that's the way things are but it is not obviously true. > It doesn't require that everything to exist, it requires only one particular program to exist: the universal dovetailer. This program and its execution exist within mathematics. For example, it is a true statement that the state of this program after the 10^100th step of its computation has some particular value X, and it is also a true statement that the 10^100 + 1 step has some other particular value Y. It is also a true statement that the program corresponding to the emulation of the wave function for the Milky Way Galaxy contains John Clark and this particular John Clark believes he is conscious and alive and sitting in front of a computer in a physical universe. > > > Hence, arithmetical realism is a candidate TOE. >> > > A candidate certainly, but is it the real deal? Maybe but it's not obvious. > Right, but it is a scientific question. It will not be easy but we can refute or confirm the theory by seeing what the UD implies for the physics that observers see. Everett's theory was a great confirmation, for without it, conventional QM with collapse (and a single universe) would have ruled it out. As it stands, there are several physical concepts that provide support for the UD being a valid TOE: Quantum uncertainty Non clonability of matter Determinism in physical laws Information as a fundamental "physical" quantity (I think there is something I am forgetting, but Bruno can fill in the gaps) > > > This is the "grand conclusion" you have been missing for all these >> years. I don't think this was obvious to Og the caveman. >> > > Nor is it obvious to John the non-caveman. > Nice. Jason -- 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.