> On 26 Mar 2014, at 1:56 pm, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 3/25/2014 6:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> >> >>> 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. > > Probably not since classical physics is based on real numbers (and so is > quantum mechanics for that matter). Of course you could still fall back on > "similar enough". But in that case you will, as you are dying, pass into a > state of consciousness (i.e. none) that is "similar enough" to a fetus (of > some animal) or maybe a cabbage.
You don't need an *exact* copy, just a good enough copy. If an exact copy were needed, either at the quantum level or to an infinite number of decimal places, then we could not survive from one moment to the next, since in a very small period there are quite gross physical changes in our bodies. -- 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.
