On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 9:31 PM Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 20:29, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 7:50 PM Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 19:35, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 6:51 PM Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 18:12, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 5:50 PM Stathis Papaioannou < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 15:55, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 12/20/2021 6:13 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The probabilities come from the fact that observers consider >>>>>>>> themselves unique individuals persisting through time. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But that doesn't imply any kind of probability unless they regard >>>>>>>> themselves as the one member of an ensemble that is unique, e.g. the >>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>> that really exists or the one that's really me. Otherwise they are >>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>> like the duplicate Captain Kirks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Each copy does indeed feel as if they are the one true continuation >>>>>>> of the original even though they know that they are not, because that is >>>>>>> the nature of first person experience. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You still need to introduce an independent notion of probability >>>>>> because each member must consider himself to be a random selection from >>>>>> the >>>>>> ensemble. The notion of a random selection cannot be defined without >>>>>> reference to some prior notion of probability. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes, but you don't need any specific theory about how your identity >>>>> moves from one body into the next. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You just need some credible evidence that such a notion even begins to >>>> make sense. >>>> >>> >>> It makes sense that I feel myself to be a unique individual persisting >>> through time, because everyone understands what it means. Some people try >>> to come up with theories based on this feeling, such as the existence of an >>> immaterial soul, but that doesn’t follow. My feeling that I am a unique >>> individual persisting through time stands independently of whatever entity >>> or gives rise to this feeling. >>> >> >> I don't know where you think you are going with this. Continuation of >> personal identity through time was not what we were talking about. >> Persistence through time does not involve self-locating uncertainty from an >> ensemble at a point in time. >> > > If one version of me will see the atom decay and the other version of me > will not see the atom decay, there is a 1/2 chance that I will see the atom > decay, because of the symmetry of the situation and because I feel myself > to be a unique individual persisting through time, even though I might know > the objective details of what is occurring. > I don't see how persistence through time has any bearing on the probability. If there is a split, then the probability that you will see one or the other result depends on the magnitudes of the wave function for the branches. That is the Born rule, and it is an independent assumption, as is the fact that there is a probability interpretation at all. Self-locating uncertainty only gives you a measure of the probability if the number of branches with each outcome matches the Born probabilities. Bruce -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSxCDwhfz1s8n9-3ZNpYJp7Vh%2B%3DaFh%3D8MSkLny5Doz%3DNw%40mail.gmail.com.
