On 26 March 2014 12:55, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > On 26 March 2014 14:50, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 26 March 2014 12:45, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 3/25/2014 6:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 26 March 2014 12:15, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> An infinite universe (Tegmark type 1) implies that our >>>>> consciousness flits about from one copy of us to another and that as a >>>>> consequence we are immortal, so it does affect us even if there is no >>>>> physical communication between its distant parts. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That seems to imply that one's consciousness is unique and moves >>>> around like a soul. >>>> >>> >>> There's no dodgy metaphysical mechanism involved. If there are >>> multiple physical copies of you, and each copy has a similar consciousness >>> to you, then you can't know which copy is currently generating your >>> consciousness. >>> >>> >>>> I think the idea is that the "stream of consciousness" is unified so >>>> long as all the copies are being realized identically, in fact they are not >>>> "multiple" per Leibniz's identity of indiscernibles. When there is some >>>> quantum event amplified enough to make a difference in the stream of >>>> consciousness then the stream divides and there are two (or more) streams. >>>> >>> >>> An implication of this is that if one of the streams terminates your >>> consciousness will continue in the other. >>> >>> >>> But it will, at best be *similar* to the deceased "you", just as I am >>> quite different from Brent Meeker of 50yrs ago. And there is no quarantee >>> that some stream will continue. >>> >> >> Similar is good enough. There is a guarantee that some branch will >> continue if everything that can happen does happen. >> >> Surely in an infinite universe, and assuming the identity of quantum > states, you don't need similarity - you will get a quantum state that is a > follow-on from your previous one, but in which you continue to be alive... > > Of course this depends on what it means for quantum states to follow on > from other ones. But our brains already seem to "know" what that means, in > that we feel we're the same person we were this morning, and so we feel > continuity of "similar enough" quantum states. Unless QM is wrong about the > nature of quantum states, we will feel continuity if the "follow on" state > is actually 10 ^ 10 ^ 100 light years away (or 10 ^ 10 ^ 100 years away) > from the preceeding state. >
I agree but I don't think you need to refer to QM at all. The conclusion would still follow in a classical infinite universe. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
