Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 13 Nov 2013, at 23:09, meekerdb wrote: On 11/13/2013 10:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2013, at 18:45, meekerdb wrote: On 11/12/2013 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2013, at 04:44, meekerdb wrote: Experience may be like that; everything has 'experience', it's just not human experience and when you stop having human experience you're dead. Why? If by dying we remember being something different from human, I would still feel like I am surviving. (Amazingly, salvia can lead to such an experience/hallucination). Yes, if you remember. OK, here we are at a crucial vexing complex point. To address that question, we should engage in an type of thought experiment, which I have not used in the UDA, although I have use it implicitly at the inspiration level for the mathematical AUDA. It is also sleepy in the dream argument, or in a comp (re)interpretation of Maury's theory of dreams (refuted in his usual interpretation by the experimental testing of the REM dream lucidity). Those different type of thought experiment involve amnesia of some kind, and certainly ask for some imagination. It appears also in Saibal Mitra bactracking. A recurring thema. But honestly, without mastering the usual non-amnesic type of experience, I am not sure it makes sense to even try those more subtle thought experiences. A study of pathological state of consciousness can help probably. It is related with the renormalization, which simple case is got in the material (in the Plotinian sense) Bp Dt. The idea here is that the realities in which you(the 1-you) don't survive count for nothing in the measure. It is again quasi tautological. The realities where you survive with some amnesia get a role proportional to *your* ability to recognize yourself in the other. If the usual comp (where you survive integrally with no amnesia, when substituted at some level) is assumed, some thought experience can hint that we might survive at all level of substitution, in possible intermediate non-physical realties (but still arithmetical). The probabilities might even depends on our descendants, which might make them lower or higher through diverse theo/bio-technologies (which might free us from, or freeze us in, the Samsara). But I don't remember anything earlier than about age 4 and neither do other people I know. Which then implies that we are not past eternal and so it is possible to not be future eternal. It depends of what you are willing to believe you are, or with what you are willing to identify with. There is a part of intrinsic first personal *choice* here. Of course I'm willing to believe I was a great and famous king in my previous life - but does that make it so? I did not say that willing is not enough. But if you recognize yourself through what that king has done, that might be closer to the idea. Also, with comp, not everything has experience. Only persons, and they need the support of some computational self-reference ability. And brains provide that support. Yes. Locally. But a brain is itself a persistent relative information pattern belonging to infinities of computations. But what do those infinities that provide the underlying physics have to do with conscious thoughts, which are (at least mostly) strictly classical and finite? UDA step 7. Consciousness needs some interval of time, this needs both the computations, and the FPI. Reverting to my favorite thought experiment, if I build an AI Mars Rover it will presumably be conscious and have 1p POV. It's AI computations are also supported by an infinity (or very numerous) processes at a lower level. Does that mean it is immmortal? Yes. QTI only applies to it in the sense that if it is destroyed, or just turned off, then in the vastness of a multiverse where everything happens there must be similar AI with a similar program that continues the state of my Mars Rover. This kind of continuation seems to have nothing to do with consciousness, since you could say the same of any sequence. Saying that it continues a POV seems like an ad hoc assumption. I don't understand. Why don't you apply the Mars Rover pov, the same conclusion than in step 7? Why it seems linear and symmetrical remains to be explained (if that is really the case). Here , Another Woman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_XHVdz2uRQ is a Harlequin movie which illustrates how amnesia can be pleasing/ helpful until the memory come back. It is an Harlenquin, so no worry: happy ending guarantied :) Hmm... Identity and amnesia is a frequent theme in the Harlequin series, as you can see by typing harlequin romance movies amnesia in youtube. Ah, so that's where you do your research. My left brain has learned to listen to my right brain, and I take the data anywhere without shame. Good stories have good dialogs, like
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11 Nov 2013, at 20:21, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/11 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/11/2013 1:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Sure, but if I live infinitely long I will have almost all my experiences older than 75. So when I note that I'm not that old and that seems improbable, The thing is as I said is that you have to be *first* 75 before being older... you're talking like every moment of your life was chosen randomly... they aren't (at least for me) before today, it was yesterday, not a random moment, and tomorrow will be tomorrow not a random moment in my life. Using your argument I should never have been a child. No, I'm just saying that sampling your life at random Your life is not sampled at random, you have to be one year old before being 75; before being 1000 before being 10¹⁰. I'm less likely to find you You find you every day, according to you, every day should not happen, only being 10 ¹ ⁰ ⁰ ⁰ ⁰ ⁰ ⁰ ⁰ ⁰⁰⁰ is likely, it's just non-sense, your life is not random sampled, yesterday happen before today and before tomorrow. That doesn't make today less likely than tomorrow. being less than a year old than being less than a thousand years old. If my life is infinite, then it seems surprising that I find myself less than 75yrs old. It's not, because it is mandatory that in that long lifespan you find yourself 75. You cannot be very old before having been less old. Your life is sequential and that sequence cannot be avoided, even if you'll live an infinity of time. I don't think this is a very strong argument, since it would apply no matter what age I found myself to be. Exactly, it's just ASSA is non-sensical. But it seems curious that I find it to be true of everyone around me also. As though we all started more or less together. So we weren't past eternal either. I don't see how QI imples past eternality, it's not mandatory that infinity goes both way, things can have a start without an end. I will try to add a subtle point here, in some answer to Brent's question. You are correct here, because immortality and the existence of the consistent continuations are relative to your actual state of beliefs, and this one can be captured by a finite computational state), but the measure on those consistent computational extensions is defined by your bodies and evironments, which are defined by the set of all computations going through that state, and this implies an infinity, including an infinity of pasts (which might due to the same, or close, universal machines, recurring in the UD* (or arithmetic)(*). That's why comp immortality implies infinity goes both way. Put in another way: we have an infinite future above the substitution level (comp-immortality) We have an infinite past below the substitution level. Here we is somewhat undefined, and this points on the difficulty of the question. I would not like to insist on this too much, as long as much more simpler point are not yet well understood. More on this will appear probably in further comments. (*) Comp implies that IF the big bang theory is correct (that is the big bang is the origin of the physical universe we are observing, then, the big bang must have a non observable *physical* origin (like the collision of branes in some string theory for example). In fact it is simple to sum up: comp implies infinities in all directions and scales. This is due to the fact that the 1p results from the competition between *all* universal (and non universal) machines. Bruno Quentin Brent -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 13 Nov 2013, at 00:33, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com Every one of the perhaps inifinite copies of you will grow old and die in less than 150 years. There is no quantum immortality Well it's cool asserting things... but you should develop more, all I'm saying is that if MWI is true, the argument follows. It's clear that if you use other premisses it follows or it doesn't, but without knowing more I don't know, but as you seems sure, please develop. Plus I'm not arguing that MWI is true (or that QI is true for that matter), just following the consequences if MWI is true. Animals, first persons, observers and philosophers asserts Q. Scientists, and the wises, asserts P - Q. Bruno Quentin On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 1:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 1:02 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 12:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute probability of being alive, probability is only meaningful between two moments... But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future, This is ASSA and that can become arbitrarily small, and in fact it is arbitrarily small If absolute measure makes sense, then your absolute measure is always decreasing, still in MWI, as there is always a next moment (which will be as *real* as the previous one), I don't see how ASSA is relevant for the question. I guess it depends on how you value future states. If only those you exist in matter then you can ignore the ASSA. No need for life insurance. No concern about global warming. That does not follow... RSSA is moment to moment... If you have a gun in front of you and you shoot in your head and if MWI is true, there will be more branches where you are crippled than where you are perfectly safe (and a hell of a lot more where you're dead, but *we don't count where you're not*). But that's part of what bothers me about this idea. How crippled/ brain-damaged can you be and still count as a continuation? Are there degrees of continuation? As long as you still feel you, that counts. If so, why can't the degrees asymptote to zero? It is, reread my previous message, there is a continuum of such continuations. The one that don't count are the one where nothing is left from you. I would say also, there is a continuum but by RSSA, nearest continuation should have higher probability. - so all rational decisions will be based on assuming it becomes zero. Right? I don't see how decisions come into play here, rational decisions depends on the one taking them... I would rationally choose to minimize arm for me (so as not to put my life in jeopardy), because if MWI is true *and* with RSSA, me in front on a shotgun, will likely result me being crippled while not dead with a hell lot more probability than being perfectly safe But most such events, like being shot with a shotgun, are essentially classical which implies that your continuations depend on extremely improbable events Sure, but the point is *ẗhere is a continuation*; that's all what is needed for the argument to follow. There is a continuation seems to slough over what counts as a continuation and whether we should care about it. There is a continuum of continuations, the point is there is, so you either argue MWI is false, but your argument is pointeless if MWI is true, that's the way it is. Well I'm certainly not dogmatically assuming MWI. In fact I'm testing whether it leads to absurdities. Sure, the point is that if MWI is true, the argument follows. If the only continuations are quite different from what you think of as Quentin Anciaux, do they still count? The only thing that count is 1st POV... So *you* Quentin Anciaux (incidentally, how do pronounce that?) don't necessarily continue. It is just that there is a continuation of 1p POVs. So we're down to the question of what constitutes a 1p POV. I know what is my own, don't know for you, but I assume you do know it for yourself. And I don't think you can just rely on the continuity of Hilbert space evolution because the time scale of that evolution can be much faster than the sequences of conscious thought. So as far QM goes you could evolve from Quentin Anciaux to Neo (or to Brent Meeker) in a millisecond. - Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns, e.g. you wake up from having dreamed a whole life which led to you being shot, or you discover you are just participating in a simulation in which you were shot, or you're not really Quentin Anciaux, or... Did you read
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 12 Nov 2013, at 18:15, meekerdb wrote: On 11/12/2013 2:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Both with Comp and with Everett-QM we have lost that unique theoretical evidence, because our best current explanation (comp, or QM) makes that mind-brain identity non sensical. I don't see anything about QM that makes mind is what a brain does non-sensical. About QM, I don't know. I reason assuming comp (once and for all, to avoid repetition). In comp, mind is associated to a relative computation, in the 3p view. And my 1p-mind (what counts for immortality question) is associated to an infinity computations. Quantum immortality relies on it: QM implies material objects exist as states in Hilbert space which evolve unitarily. If mind and brain are not one-to-one, then your duplication thought experiments don't work as arguments. I don't see this. The argument assumes only that I will survive with P = 1 in case my brain is replaced by a digital brain. This does not use the one-one identity thesis. There is a dlight difficulty, which is that at the end of the argument, we know that the P(W) = P(M) = 1/2 is false in practice, it is only 1/2 minus epsilon, as we learn that perfect annihilation is *only* theoretical. In fact P(W) = P(M) = 1/2 - P(I survive in Helsinki through quantum or comp tunneling effect). = 1/2 - P(H) Now, if you are not reconstituted in W, nor in M, but still annihilated in H (Helsinki), then P(H) = 1 (by comp or quantum tunneling effect), and P(M) = P(W) = 0. (of course, this is still an approximation, as there is non null probability that you will feel in W or M by whatever the UD will make you believe this). Bruno Brent -- 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 12 Nov 2013, at 18:45, meekerdb wrote: On 11/12/2013 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2013, at 04:44, meekerdb wrote: Experience may be like that; everything has 'experience', it's just not human experience and when you stop having human experience you're dead. Why? If by dying we remember being something different from human, I would still feel like I am surviving. (Amazingly, salvia can lead to such an experience/hallucination). Yes, if you remember. OK, here we are at a crucial vexing complex point. To address that question, we should engage in an type of thought experiment, which I have not used in the UDA, although I have use it implicitly at the inspiration level for the mathematical AUDA. It is also sleepy in the dream argument, or in a comp (re)interpretation of Maury's theory of dreams (refuted in his usual interpretation by the experimental testing of the REM dream lucidity). Those different type of thought experiment involve amnesia of some kind, and certainly ask for some imagination. It appears also in Saibal Mitra bactracking. A recurring thema. But honestly, without mastering the usual non-amnesic type of experience, I am not sure it makes sense to even try those more subtle thought experiences. A study of pathological state of consciousness can help probably. It is related with the renormalization, which simple case is got in the material (in the Plotinian sense) Bp Dt. The idea here is that the realities in which you(the 1-you) don't survive count for nothing in the measure. It is again quasi tautological. The realities where you survive with some amnesia get a role proportional to *your* ability to recognize yourself in the other. If the usual comp (where you survive integrally with no amnesia, when substituted at some level) is assumed, some thought experience can hint that we might survive at all level of substitution, in possible intermediate non-physical realties (but still arithmetical). The probabilities might even depends on our descendants, which might make them lower or higher through diverse theo/bio-technologies (which might free us from, or freeze us in, the Samsara). But I don't remember anything earlier than about age 4 and neither do other people I know. Which then implies that we are not past eternal and so it is possible to not be future eternal. It depends of what you are willing to believe you are, or with what you are willing to identify with. There is a part of intrinsic first personal *choice* here. Also, with comp, not everything has experience. Only persons, and they need the support of some computational self-reference ability. And brains provide that support. Yes. Locally. But a brain is itself a persistent relative information pattern belonging to infinities of computations. Why it seems linear and symmetrical remains to be explained (if that is really the case). Here , Another Woman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_XHVdz2uRQ is a Harlequin movie which illustrates how amnesia can be pleasing/ helpful until the memory come back. It is an Harlenquin, so no worry: happy ending guarantied :) Hmm... Identity and amnesia is a frequent theme in the Harlequin series, as you can see by typing harlequin romance movies amnesia in youtube. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/13/2013 10:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2013, at 18:45, meekerdb wrote: On 11/12/2013 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2013, at 04:44, meekerdb wrote: Experience may be like that; everything has 'experience', it's just not human experience and when you stop having human experience you're dead. Why? If by dying we remember being something different from human, I would still feel like I am surviving. (Amazingly, salvia can lead to such an experience/hallucination). Yes, if you remember. OK, here we are at a crucial vexing complex point. To address that question, we should engage in an type of thought experiment, which I have not used in the UDA, although I have use it implicitly at the inspiration level for the mathematical AUDA. It is also sleepy in the dream argument, or in a comp (re)interpretation of Maury's theory of dreams (refuted in his usual interpretation by the experimental testing of the REM dream lucidity). Those different type of thought experiment involve amnesia of some kind, and certainly ask for some imagination. It appears also in Saibal Mitra bactracking. A recurring thema. But honestly, without mastering the usual non-amnesic type of experience, I am not sure it makes sense to even try those more subtle thought experiences. A study of pathological state of consciousness can help probably. It is related with the renormalization, which simple case is got in the material (in the Plotinian sense) Bp Dt. The idea here is that the realities in which you(the 1-you) don't survive count for nothing in the measure. It is again quasi tautological. The realities where you survive with some amnesia get a role proportional to *your* ability to recognize yourself in the other. If the usual comp (where you survive integrally with no amnesia, when substituted at some level) is assumed, some thought experience can hint that we might survive at all level of substitution, in possible intermediate non-physical realties (but still arithmetical). The probabilities might even depends on our descendants, which might make them lower or higher through diverse theo/bio-technologies (which might free us from, or freeze us in, the Samsara). But I don't remember anything earlier than about age 4 and neither do other people I know. Which then implies that we are not past eternal and so it is possible to not be future eternal. It depends of what you are willing to believe you are, or with what you are willing to identify with. There is a part of intrinsic first personal *choice* here. Of course I'm willing to believe I was a great and famous king in my previous life - but does that make it so? Also, with comp, not everything has experience. Only persons, and they need the support of some computational self-reference ability. And brains provide that support. Yes. Locally. But a brain is itself a persistent relative information pattern belonging to infinities of computations. But what do those infinities that provide the underlying physics have to do with conscious thoughts, which are (at least mostly) strictly classical and finite? Reverting to my favorite thought experiment, if I build an AI Mars Rover it will presumably be conscious and have 1p POV. It's AI computations are also supported by an infinity (or very numerous) processes at a lower level. Does that mean it is immmortal? QTI only applies to it in the sense that if it is destroyed, or just turned off, then in the vastness of a multiverse where everything happens there must be similar AI with a similar program that continues the state of my Mars Rover. This kind of continuation seems to have nothing to do with consciousness, since you could say the same of any sequence. Saying that it continues a POV seems like an ad hoc assumption. Why it seems linear and symmetrical remains to be explained (if that is really the case). Here , Another Woman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_XHVdz2uRQ is a Harlequin movie which illustrates how amnesia can be pleasing/helpful until the memory come back. It is an Harlenquin, so no worry: happy ending guarantied :) Hmm... Identity and amnesia is a frequent theme in the Harlequin series, as you can see by typing harlequin romance movies amnesia in youtube. Ah, so that's where you do your research. I never would have thought of looking there. :-) Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 12 Nov 2013, at 03:38, LizR wrote: On 12 November 2013 14:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/11/2013 4:29 PM, LizR wrote: On 12 November 2013 13:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/11/2013 3:39 PM, LizR wrote: On 12 November 2013 09:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/11/2013 11:21 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: You find you every day, according to you, every day should not happen, only being 10 ¹ ⁰ ⁰ ⁰ ⁰ ⁰ ⁰ ⁰ ⁰ ⁰⁰ is likely, it's just non-sense, your life is not random sampled, yesterday happen before today and before tomorrow. That doesn't make today less likely than tomorrow. Sure, but it makes the interval (0,75) less likely than the interval (75, inf). Unless you're Billy Pilgrim from Slaughterhouse 5 this argument doesn't make sense, beause you are forced to sample your days in ascending order. But what does that have to do with the probabilities? A sample is when I ask myself, how probable is it that my age is what it is today. I don't have to do this everyday. In fact I'm very unlikely to have done it before age 4. So I don't see why sequence is determinative. ISTM is only implies that tomorrow will be less likely than today (since I may not ask tomorrow; possibly because I'm dead). Sequence is determinative because that's how the universe works. Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day, to the last syllable of recorded time. That's the second law doing its thing, and unless you've got very good reason to think otherwise, you shouldn't be surprised that it is. All we're saying is that you should be unsurprised to find yourself living your life in ascending order. You have to pass through your current age at some point, unless you die first, and you should expect to do so before you reach a greater age. If at your current age you ask how probable it is that you are your current age, the answer is 1. If you're quantum immortal then you will have the same probability every time you ask yourself that question into the indefinite future. You are always 100% likely to be your present age! Suppose you're Benjamin Button. For him would it be OK to say it's surprising I'm only 75? I don't know anything about Benjamin Button. Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse. Oh, right, like the guy in Martin Amis' Time's Arrow (itself a rip off from An Age by Brian Aldiss). Presumably according to QTI he's at the end of an infinite future lifetime, or whatever? But since he's unphysical I guess we can say what we like about him. So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? My normal inference is that everyone dies. Apparently the QTI throws doubt on this by pointing out that we have only sampled an infinitesimal proportion of the available branches of the multiverse, and that in another infinitesimal portion there might be people who live forever (somehow). We have strong empirical evidences that we die in the third person point of view. We have ONE theoretical evidence that we die in the first person point of view, which is the empirical evidence for an identity link between mind-state and brain. Both with Comp and with Everett-QM we have lost that unique theoretical evidence, because our best current explanation (comp, or QM) makes that mind-brain identity non sensical. Religion exists because we naturally distinguish the 1p and the 3p, which led to the understanding of the difference between the notion of soul (mental person) and body (flesh and bones). Science will completely come back when scientists will take that difference into account, and the big steps have been made by Galileo, Einstein, Everett and then completed and explained, I think, through the correct understanding of comp (intuitive and formal). For methodological reasons, scientists have put the 1p under the rug for a long time, and some have made this into a metaphysics (something that even Aristotle has not done, although his emphasis on Nature can give that illusion). The 1p comes back under the different art of relativizing the observer's position or status. Bruno What is your inference from the fact that everywhere you've ever travelled has been on or near the surface of a congenial planet supplied with air, water and all the necessities of life? -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 12 Nov 2013, at 04:35, LizR wrote: On 12 November 2013 16:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/11/2013 6:38 PM, LizR wrote: Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse. Oh, right, like the guy in Martin Amis' Time's Arrow (itself a rip off from An Age by Brian Aldiss). Presumably according to QTI he's at the end of an infinite future lifetime, or whatever? But since he's unphysical I guess we can say what we like about him. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was by F. Scott Fitzgerald (1922). Oh well, he gets precedence, then. But in any case I don't see any particular relevance, probably that's my fault... So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? My normal inference is that everyone dies. Apparently the QTI throws doubt on this by pointing out that we have only sampled an infinitesimal proportion of the available branches of the multiverse, and that in another infinitesimal portion there might be people who live forever (somehow). But doesn't QTI imply that everybody is immortal, as Jason infers. Did you read Divided by Inifinity yet? Yes it does, but only in infinitesimal slivers of the multiverse, which is what I was trying to say in my roundabout way. If you die in the vast majority of the histories, you will still survive with a probability one in the 1p-view, even if that happens in infinitesimal portion of the computations. The logic G says that all worlds access a cul-de-sac world, but the logic of probability (Bp Dt) abstracts from all cul-de-sac world. If you are not reconstituted in Moscow, in the WM-duplication,, then P(Washington) = 1. What the comp-immortality looks like is hard to evaluate, because we don't know how to evaluate the probabilities when amnesia, and backtracking, are allowed. Comp remains consistent with different beliefs on this, and that will lead to quite different comp religions. Bruno No I skimmed it, but I hope / think I get the point. Is there anything else I should be taking from it apart from this is what quantum immortality might look like, assuming a nearby gamma ray burst and so on ? What is your inference from the fact that everywhere you've ever travelled has been on or near the surface of a congenial planet supplied with air, water and all the necessities of life? That I'm the product of evolution on this planet. Right, you're here in an extremely unlikely situation if you take random samples from the universe. I was trying to draw a parallel here, if I can just remember what it was... -- 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 12 Nov 2013, at 04:44, meekerdb wrote: Experience may be like that; everything has 'experience', it's just not human experience and when you stop having human experience you're dead. Why? If by dying we remember being something different from human, I would still feel like I am surviving. (Amazingly, salvia can lead to such an experience/hallucination). Also, with comp, not everything has experience. Only persons, and they need the support of some computational self-reference ability. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse. So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? That observation is not relevant the question at hand. MWI implies subjective immortality, not immortality of others. 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 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
Also, I found this related thread on QTI, archived by James Higgo, which took place on this list many years ago: http://higgo.com/qti/rplaga.htm Jason On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse. So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? That observation is not relevant the question at hand. MWI implies subjective immortality, not immortality of others. 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 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/12/2013 2:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Both with Comp and with Everett-QM we have lost that unique theoretical evidence, because our best current explanation (comp, or QM) makes that mind-brain identity non sensical. I don't see anything about QM that makes mind is what a brain does non-sensical. Quantum immortality relies on it: QM implies material objects exist as states in Hilbert space which evolve unitarily. If mind and brain are not one-to-one, then your duplication thought experiments don't work as arguments. Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/12/2013 2:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2013, at 04:35, LizR wrote: On 12 November 2013 16:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/11/2013 6:38 PM, LizR wrote: Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse. Oh, right, like the guy in Martin Amis' Time's Arrow (itself a rip off from An Age by Brian Aldiss). Presumably according to QTI he's at the end of an infinite future lifetime, or whatever? But since he's unphysical I guess we can say what we like about him. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was by F. Scott Fitzgerald (1922). Oh well, he gets precedence, then. But in any case I don't see any particular relevance, probably that's my fault... So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? My normal inference is that everyone dies. Apparently the QTI throws doubt on this by pointing out that we have only sampled an infinitesimal proportion of the available branches of the multiverse, and that in another infinitesimal portion there might be people who live forever (somehow). But doesn't QTI imply that everybody is immortal, as Jason infers. Did you read Divided by Inifinity yet? Yes it does, but only in infinitesimal slivers of the multiverse, which is what I was trying to say in my roundabout way. If you die in the vast majority of the histories, you will still survive with a probability one in the 1p-view, even if that happens in infinitesimal portion of the computations. That reads like something John Clark would write: if you see Washington the probability you are the guy who sees Washington is 1. No uncertainty there. Sounds like a misuse of the concept of probability to me. The logic G says that all worlds access a cul-de-sac world, but the logic of probability (Bp Dt) abstracts from all cul-de-sac world. What does abstracts from mean? ignore? condition on? Brent If you are not reconstituted in Moscow, in the WM-duplication,, then P(Washington) = 1. What the comp-immortality looks like is hard to evaluate, because we don't know how to evaluate the probabilities when amnesia, and backtracking, are allowed. Comp remains consistent with different beliefs on this, and that will lead to quite different comp religions. Bruno No I skimmed it, but I hope / think I get the point. Is there anything else I should be taking from it apart from this is what quantum immortality might look like, assuming a nearby gamma ray burst and so on ? What is your inference from the fact that everywhere you've ever travelled has been on or near the surface of a congenial planet supplied with air, water and all the necessities of life? That I'm the product of evolution on this planet. Right, you're here in an extremely unlikely situation if you take random samples from the universe. I was trying to draw a parallel here, if I can just remember what it was... -- 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto: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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3629/6823 - Release Date: 11/09/13 -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/12/2013 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2013, at 04:44, meekerdb wrote: Experience may be like that; everything has 'experience', it's just not human experience and when you stop having human experience you're dead. Why? If by dying we remember being something different from human, I would still feel like I am surviving. (Amazingly, salvia can lead to such an experience/hallucination). Yes, if you remember. But I don't remember anything earlier than about age 4 and neither do other people I know. Which then implies that we are not past eternal and so it is possible to not be future eternal. Also, with comp, not everything has experience. Only persons, and they need the support of some computational self-reference ability. And brains provide that support. Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/12/2013 7:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse. So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? That observation is not relevant the question at hand. MWI implies subjective immortality, not immortality of others. I didn't specify a question. Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/12/2013 10:24 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 7:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse. So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? That observation is not relevant the question at hand. MWI implies subjective immortality, not immortality of others. I didn't specify a question. And what is this what's you inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? ? Also I don't see the relevance of the fact that we don't have past eternality for that question ? You don't have to move back to 4 to say we forget things, from day to day there are a lot of things I forget Me too, but there are *some things* I remember and even remember remembering. My father had Alzheimers and he came to a state where he didn't remember anything, even minute to minute. Was he still the same person? Didn't seem like it to me. ... that doesn't mean I'm dead today, or that those event didn't exists, or that is necessary they did. QI does not state that we should have an eternal past... only that our 1 POV will never cease (doesn't say anything about perfect memory recall either). No, but if we rely on QM to show we have an eternal future, then we have to say why the time symmetry of QM doesn't imply and eternal past. Of course the obvious answer is in the past our physical structure (i.e. brain etc) didn't exist. But then that also implies that we won't exist in the future as our physical structure dissipates. Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 10:24 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 7:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse. So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? That observation is not relevant the question at hand. MWI implies subjective immortality, not immortality of others. I didn't specify a question. And what is this what's you inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? ? Also I don't see the relevance of the fact that we don't have past eternality for that question ? You don't have to move back to 4 to say we forget things, from day to day there are a lot of things I forget Me too, but there are *some things* I remember and even remember remembering. My father had Alzheimers and he came to a state where he didn't remember anything, even minute to minute. Was he still the same person? Didn't seem like it to me. ... that doesn't mean I'm dead today, or that those event didn't exists, or that is necessary they did. QI does not state that we should have an eternal past... only that our 1 POV will never cease (doesn't say anything about perfect memory recall either). No, but if we rely on QM to show we have an eternal future, then we have to say why the time symmetry of QM doesn't imply and eternal past. Of course the obvious answer is in the past our physical structure (i.e. brain etc) didn't exist. But then that also implies that we won't exist in the future as our physical structure dissipates. Only if MWI is false, QI relies on MWI, with MWI, it is garanteed that some branches will carry a continuum of you from near perfect continuation to no continuation (but these are to be ignore, you're just not where you're not), of course if MWI is false, QI is too. Quentin Brent -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/12/2013 11:15 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 10:24 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 7:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse. So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? That observation is not relevant the question at hand. MWI implies subjective immortality, not immortality of others. I didn't specify a question. And what is this what's you inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? ? Also I don't see the relevance of the fact that we don't have past eternality for that question ? You don't have to move back to 4 to say we forget things, from day to day there are a lot of things I forget Me too, but there are *some things* I remember and even remember remembering. My father had Alzheimers and he came to a state where he didn't remember anything, even minute to minute. Was he still the same person? Didn't seem like it to me. ... that doesn't mean I'm dead today, or that those event didn't exists, or that is necessary they did. QI does not state that we should have an eternal past... only that our 1 POV will never cease (doesn't say anything about perfect memory recall either). No, but if we rely on QM to show we have an eternal future, then we have to say why the time symmetry of QM doesn't imply and eternal past. Of course the obvious answer is in the past our physical structure (i.e. brain etc) didn't exist. But then that also implies that we won't exist in the future as our physical structure dissipates. Only if MWI is false, QI relies on MWI, with MWI, it is garanteed that some branches will carry a continuum of you from near perfect continuation to no continuation (but these are to be ignore, you're just not where you're not), of course if MWI is false, QI is too. But when you look at it that way it's not so dependent on QM as on statistical mechanics. If your 'measure' in the world (and I'm not sure that's a coherent concept) is continually decreasing, as the Born weight of dead grows alive falls, then the probability you are dead approaches 1. Then it becomes vague what you means. Can your next experience be that being a corpse, a rock, a bit of methane gas? Is there necessarily a Quentin who remembers being Quentin at all? Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 11:15 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 10:24 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 7:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse. So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? That observation is not relevant the question at hand. MWI implies subjective immortality, not immortality of others. I didn't specify a question. And what is this what's you inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? ? Also I don't see the relevance of the fact that we don't have past eternality for that question ? You don't have to move back to 4 to say we forget things, from day to day there are a lot of things I forget Me too, but there are *some things* I remember and even remember remembering. My father had Alzheimers and he came to a state where he didn't remember anything, even minute to minute. Was he still the same person? Didn't seem like it to me. ... that doesn't mean I'm dead today, or that those event didn't exists, or that is necessary they did. QI does not state that we should have an eternal past... only that our 1 POV will never cease (doesn't say anything about perfect memory recall either). No, but if we rely on QM to show we have an eternal future, then we have to say why the time symmetry of QM doesn't imply and eternal past. Of course the obvious answer is in the past our physical structure (i.e. brain etc) didn't exist. But then that also implies that we won't exist in the future as our physical structure dissipates. Only if MWI is false, QI relies on MWI, with MWI, it is garanteed that some branches will carry a continuum of you from near perfect continuation to no continuation (but these are to be ignore, you're just not where you're not), of course if MWI is false, QI is too. But when you look at it that way it's not so dependent on QM as on statistical mechanics. If your 'measure' in the world (and I'm not sure that's a coherent concept) is continually decreasing, as the Born weight of dead grows alive falls, then the probability you are dead approaches 1. But it will never be 1, so the argument follows. As long as there is at least one continuation, it is enough, and as MWI garanteed such continuation, if MWI is true, QI is too. Then it becomes vague what you means. You is your own feeling of being alive Only you know what you is. Can your next experience be that being a corpse, If it's possible to have a 1 POV that feels like 1 POV while being alive, why not, I don't know, the only thing QI says, is that you will feel a next moment. a rock, a bit of methane gas? Is there necessarily a Quentin who remembers being Quentin at all? There must be one, but there must be a continuum of Quentin in between... The only ignored ones are the ones who don't remember having been Quentin. Quentin Brent -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/12/2013 11:30 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 11:15 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 10:24 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 7:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse. So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? That observation is not relevant the question at hand. MWI implies subjective immortality, not immortality of others. I didn't specify a question. And what is this what's you inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? ? Also I don't see the relevance of the fact that we don't have past eternality for that question ? You don't have to move back to 4 to say we forget things, from day to day there are a lot of things I forget Me too, but there are *some things* I remember and even remember remembering. My father had Alzheimers and he came to a state where he didn't remember anything, even minute to minute. Was he still the same person? Didn't seem like it to me. ... that doesn't mean I'm dead today, or that those event didn't exists, or that is necessary they did. QI does not state that we should have an eternal past... only that our 1 POV will never cease (doesn't say anything about perfect memory recall either). No, but if we rely on QM to show we have an eternal future, then we have to say why the time symmetry of QM doesn't imply and eternal past. Of course the obvious answer is in the past our physical structure (i.e. brain etc) didn't exist. But then that also implies that we won't exist in the future as our physical structure dissipates. Only if MWI is false, QI relies on MWI, with MWI, it is garanteed that some branches will carry a continuum of you from near perfect continuation to no continuation (but these are to be ignore, you're just not where you're not), of course if MWI is false, QI is too. But when you look at it that way it's not so dependent on QM as on statistical mechanics. If your 'measure' in the world (and I'm not sure that's a coherent concept) is continually decreasing, as the Born weight of dead grows alive falls, then the probability you are dead approaches 1. But it will never be 1, so the argument follows. As long as there is at least one continuation, it is enough, and as MWI garanteed such continuation, if MWI is true, QI is too. Then it becomes vague what you means. You is your own feeling of being alive Only you know what you is. Can your next experience be that being a corpse, If it's possible to have a 1 POV that feels like 1 POV while being alive, why not, I don't know, the only thing QI says, is that you will feel a next moment. a rock, a bit of methane gas? Is there necessarily a Quentin who remembers being Quentin at all? There must be one, but there must be a continuum of Quentin in between... The only ignored ones are the ones who don't remember having been Quentin. But that's my point that QI is relying more on statistical mechanics than QM. Essentially you're saying it's *possible* that there will a experiences of remembering being Quentin at any given time in the future (something that would have been true in a Newtonian world view also) and since everything possible happens (another dubious assumption) you are immortal. But having a vanishing probability of being alive, seems to me the same as being dead. Of course you can also argue that it is possible, in some world Quentin is alive, full of memories, has a Nobel prize and is married to Gwenth Paltrow. But isn't that, alas, a completely different Quentin. Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 11:30 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 11:15 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 10:24 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 7:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse. So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? That observation is not relevant the question at hand. MWI implies subjective immortality, not immortality of others. I didn't specify a question. And what is this what's you inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? ? Also I don't see the relevance of the fact that we don't have past eternality for that question ? You don't have to move back to 4 to say we forget things, from day to day there are a lot of things I forget Me too, but there are *some things* I remember and even remember remembering. My father had Alzheimers and he came to a state where he didn't remember anything, even minute to minute. Was he still the same person? Didn't seem like it to me. ... that doesn't mean I'm dead today, or that those event didn't exists, or that is necessary they did. QI does not state that we should have an eternal past... only that our 1 POV will never cease (doesn't say anything about perfect memory recall either). No, but if we rely on QM to show we have an eternal future, then we have to say why the time symmetry of QM doesn't imply and eternal past. Of course the obvious answer is in the past our physical structure (i.e. brain etc) didn't exist. But then that also implies that we won't exist in the future as our physical structure dissipates. Only if MWI is false, QI relies on MWI, with MWI, it is garanteed that some branches will carry a continuum of you from near perfect continuation to no continuation (but these are to be ignore, you're just not where you're not), of course if MWI is false, QI is too. But when you look at it that way it's not so dependent on QM as on statistical mechanics. If your 'measure' in the world (and I'm not sure that's a coherent concept) is continually decreasing, as the Born weight of dead grows alive falls, then the probability you are dead approaches 1. But it will never be 1, so the argument follows. As long as there is at least one continuation, it is enough, and as MWI garanteed such continuation, if MWI is true, QI is too. Then it becomes vague what you means. You is your own feeling of being alive Only you know what you is. Can your next experience be that being a corpse, If it's possible to have a 1 POV that feels like 1 POV while being alive, why not, I don't know, the only thing QI says, is that you will feel a next moment. a rock, a bit of methane gas? Is there necessarily a Quentin who remembers being Quentin at all? There must be one, but there must be a continuum of Quentin in between... The only ignored ones are the ones who don't remember having been Quentin. But that's my point that QI is relying more on statistical mechanics than QM. Essentially you're saying it's *possible* that there will a experiences of remembering being Quentin at any given time in the future That's not what I'm saying, MWI garantee that there will always be a continuation at *each and every* moment, there is always a *next moment*. (something that would have been true in a Newtonian world view also) No. and since everything possible happens That's not the point, at each split, there is always a branch containing a continuation of you. (another dubious assumption) That's not the assumption, the assumption is MWI, at each split there is a continuum of universe, some containing a continuation of you, some don't... With QI, you count only the ones containing a continuation of you, and there is always 1 at each split if MWI is true. you are immortal. But having a vanishing probability of being alive, This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute probability of being alive, probability is only meaningful between two moments... seems to me the same as being dead. Being dead is having no next state, as MWI garanteed you'll have (at least one) next state, you can't be dead. Of course you can also argue that it is possible, in some world Quentin is alive, full of memories, has a Nobel prize and is married to Gwenth Paltrow. But isn't that, alas, a completely different Quentin. Well it would no be a direct continuation of me now... QI is moment to moment, MWI also predict (without QI) that such a Quentin exists in another branch... but that's not
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute probability of being alive, probability is only meaningful between two moments... But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future, and that can become arbitrarily small, and in fact it is arbitrarily small - so all rational decisions will be based on assuming it becomes zero. Right? Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute probability of being alive, probability is only meaningful between two moments... But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future, This is ASSA and that can become arbitrarily small, and in fact it is arbitrarily small If absolute measure makes sense, then your absolute measure is always decreasing, still in MWI, as there is always a next moment (which will be as *real* as the previous one), I don't see how ASSA is relevant for the question. - so all rational decisions will be based on assuming it becomes zero. Right? I don't see how decisions come into play here, rational decisions depends on the one taking them... I would rationally choose to minimize arm for me (so as not to put my life in jeopardy), because if MWI is true *and* with RSSA, me in front on a shotgun, will likely result me being crippled while not dead with a hell lot more probability than being perfectly safe RSSA is of use, ASSA not much at all. Quentin Brent -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute probability of being alive, probability is only meaningful between two moments... But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future, Also if MWI is true, the probability for such is 1... and that can become arbitrarily small Not the probability but the measure. The probability is 1, it is garanteed that there exists a future continuation of me now. ASSA is only about the measure, but even if it come vaninshingly small (and I don't think ASSA makes sense at all), that wouldn't render the one living in a low measure branch (as seen from ASSA) not real (same thing as seen from RSSA, if MWI is true, and you're finding yourself in a branch that had only 1/10¹⁰ probability, it will be as real as now), as all the branches are considered real, measure is not at play here. Quentin , and in fact it is arbitrarily small - so all rational decisions will be based on assuming it becomes zero. Right? Brent -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/12/2013 12:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute probability of being alive, probability is only meaningful between two moments... But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future, This is ASSA and that can become arbitrarily small, and in fact it is arbitrarily small If absolute measure makes sense, then your absolute measure is always decreasing, still in MWI, as there is always a next moment (which will be as *real* as the previous one), I don't see how ASSA is relevant for the question. I guess it depends on how you value future states. If only those you exist in matter then you can ignore the ASSA. No need for life insurance. No concern about global warming. - so all rational decisions will be based on assuming it becomes zero. Right? I don't see how decisions come into play here, rational decisions depends on the one taking them... I would rationally choose to minimize arm for me (so as not to put my life in jeopardy), because if MWI is true *and* with RSSA, me in front on a shotgun, will likely result me being crippled while not dead with a hell lot more probability than being perfectly safe But most such events, like being shot with a shotgun, are essentially classical which implies that your continuations depend on extremely improbable events - Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns, e.g. you wake up from having dreamed a whole life which led to you being shot, or you discover you are just participating in a simulation in which you were shot, or you're not really Quentin Anciaux, or... Did you read Divided by Infinity? RSSA is of use, ASSA not much at all. So have you bought an annuity for your retirement? Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 12:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute probability of being alive, probability is only meaningful between two moments... But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future, This is ASSA and that can become arbitrarily small, and in fact it is arbitrarily small If absolute measure makes sense, then your absolute measure is always decreasing, still in MWI, as there is always a next moment (which will be as *real* as the previous one), I don't see how ASSA is relevant for the question. I guess it depends on how you value future states. If only those you exist in matter then you can ignore the ASSA. No need for life insurance. No concern about global warming. That does not follow... RSSA is moment to moment... If you have a gun in front of you and you shoot in your head and if MWI is true, there will be more branches where you are crippled than where you are perfectly safe (and a hell of a lot more where you're dead, but *we don't count where you're not*). - so all rational decisions will be based on assuming it becomes zero. Right? I don't see how decisions come into play here, rational decisions depends on the one taking them... I would rationally choose to minimize arm for me (so as not to put my life in jeopardy), because if MWI is true *and* with RSSA, me in front on a shotgun, will likely result me being crippled while not dead with a hell lot more probability than being perfectly safe But most such events, like being shot with a shotgun, are essentially classical which implies that your continuations depend on extremely improbable events Sure, but the point is *ẗhere is a continuation*; that's all what is needed for the argument to follow. - Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns, e.g. you wake up from having dreamed a whole life which led to you being shot, or you discover you are just participating in a simulation in which you were shot, or you're not really Quentin Anciaux, or... Did you read Divided by Infinity? RSSA is of use, ASSA not much at all. So have you bought an annuity for your retirement? You confuse things... RSSA is important, and that's why you buy a life insurance. Quentin Brent -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/12/2013 1:02 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 12:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute probability of being alive, probability is only meaningful between two moments... But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future, This is ASSA and that can become arbitrarily small, and in fact it is arbitrarily small If absolute measure makes sense, then your absolute measure is always decreasing, still in MWI, as there is always a next moment (which will be as *real* as the previous one), I don't see how ASSA is relevant for the question. I guess it depends on how you value future states. If only those you exist in matter then you can ignore the ASSA. No need for life insurance. No concern about global warming. That does not follow... RSSA is moment to moment... If you have a gun in front of you and you shoot in your head and if MWI is true, there will be more branches where you are crippled than where you are perfectly safe (and a hell of a lot more where you're dead, but *we don't count where you're not*). But that's part of what bothers me about this idea. How crippled/brain-damaged can you be and still count as a continuation? Are there degrees of continuation? If so, why can't the degrees asymptote to zero? - so all rational decisions will be based on assuming it becomes zero. Right? I don't see how decisions come into play here, rational decisions depends on the one taking them... I would rationally choose to minimize arm for me (so as not to put my life in jeopardy), because if MWI is true *and* with RSSA, me in front on a shotgun, will likely result me being crippled while not dead with a hell lot more probability than being perfectly safe But most such events, like being shot with a shotgun, are essentially classical which implies that your continuations depend on extremely improbable events Sure, but the point is *ẗhere is a continuation*; that's all what is needed for the argument to follow. There is a continuation seems to slough over what counts as a continuation and whether we should care about it. If the only continuations are quite different from what you think of as Quentin Anciaux, do they still count? And I don't think you can just rely on the continuity of Hilbert space evolution because the time scale of that evolution can be much faster than the sequences of conscious thought. So as far QM goes you could evolve from Quentin Anciaux to Neo (or to Brent Meeker) in a millisecond. - Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns, e.g. you wake up from having dreamed a whole life which led to you being shot, or you discover you are just participating in a simulation in which you were shot, or you're not really Quentin Anciaux, or... Did you read Divided by Infinity? RSSA is of use, ASSA not much at all. So have you bought an annuity for your retirement? You confuse things... RSSA is important, and that's why you buy a life insurance. Life insurance I understand, it is for other people that survive you (in almost all worlds). But an annuity is for yourself, so that you don't outlive your savings in your retirement. Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 1:02 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 12:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute probability of being alive, probability is only meaningful between two moments... But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future, This is ASSA and that can become arbitrarily small, and in fact it is arbitrarily small If absolute measure makes sense, then your absolute measure is always decreasing, still in MWI, as there is always a next moment (which will be as *real* as the previous one), I don't see how ASSA is relevant for the question. I guess it depends on how you value future states. If only those you exist in matter then you can ignore the ASSA. No need for life insurance. No concern about global warming. That does not follow... RSSA is moment to moment... If you have a gun in front of you and you shoot in your head and if MWI is true, there will be more branches where you are crippled than where you are perfectly safe (and a hell of a lot more where you're dead, but *we don't count where you're not*). But that's part of what bothers me about this idea. How crippled/brain-damaged can you be and still count as a continuation? Are there degrees of continuation? As long as you still feel you, that counts. If so, why can't the degrees asymptote to zero? It is, reread my previous message, there is a continuum of such continuations. The one that don't count are the one where nothing is left from you. I would say also, there is a continuum but by RSSA, nearest continuation should have higher probability. - so all rational decisions will be based on assuming it becomes zero. Right? I don't see how decisions come into play here, rational decisions depends on the one taking them... I would rationally choose to minimize arm for me (so as not to put my life in jeopardy), because if MWI is true *and* with RSSA, me in front on a shotgun, will likely result me being crippled while not dead with a hell lot more probability than being perfectly safe But most such events, like being shot with a shotgun, are essentially classical which implies that your continuations depend on extremely improbable events Sure, but the point is *ẗhere is a continuation*; that's all what is needed for the argument to follow. There is a continuation seems to slough over what counts as a continuation and whether we should care about it. There is a continuum of continuations, the point is there is, so you either argue MWI is false, but your argument is pointeless if MWI is true, that's the way it is. If the only continuations are quite different from what you think of as Quentin Anciaux, do they still count? The only thing that count is 1st POV... And I don't think you can just rely on the continuity of Hilbert space evolution because the time scale of that evolution can be much faster than the sequences of conscious thought. So as far QM goes you could evolve from Quentin Anciaux to Neo (or to Brent Meeker) in a millisecond. - Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns, e.g. you wake up from having dreamed a whole life which led to you being shot, or you discover you are just participating in a simulation in which you were shot, or you're not really Quentin Anciaux, or... Did you read Divided by Infinity? RSSA is of use, ASSA not much at all. So have you bought an annuity for your retirement? You confuse things... RSSA is important, and that's why you buy a life insurance. Life insurance I understand, it is for other people that survive you (in almost all worlds). But an annuity is for yourself, so that you don't outlive your savings in your retirement. So what ? Quentin Brent -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/12/2013 1:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 1:02 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 12:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute probability of being alive, probability is only meaningful between two moments... But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future, This is ASSA and that can become arbitrarily small, and in fact it is arbitrarily small If absolute measure makes sense, then your absolute measure is always decreasing, still in MWI, as there is always a next moment (which will be as *real* as the previous one), I don't see how ASSA is relevant for the question. I guess it depends on how you value future states. If only those you exist in matter then you can ignore the ASSA. No need for life insurance. No concern about global warming. That does not follow... RSSA is moment to moment... If you have a gun in front of you and you shoot in your head and if MWI is true, there will be more branches where you are crippled than where you are perfectly safe (and a hell of a lot more where you're dead, but *we don't count where you're not*). But that's part of what bothers me about this idea. How crippled/brain-damaged can you be and still count as a continuation? Are there degrees of continuation? As long as you still feel you, that counts. If so, why can't the degrees asymptote to zero? It is, reread my previous message, there is a continuum of such continuations. The one that don't count are the one where nothing is left from you. I would say also, there is a continuum but by RSSA, nearest continuation should have higher probability. - so all rational decisions will be based on assuming it becomes zero. Right? I don't see how decisions come into play here, rational decisions depends on the one taking them... I would rationally choose to minimize arm for me (so as not to put my life in jeopardy), because if MWI is true *and* with RSSA, me in front on a shotgun, will likely result me being crippled while not dead with a hell lot more probability than being perfectly safe But most such events, like being shot with a shotgun, are essentially classical which implies that your continuations depend on extremely improbable events Sure, but the point is *ẗhere is a continuation*; that's all what is needed for the argument to follow. There is a continuation seems to slough over what counts as a continuation and whether we should care about it. There is a continuum of continuations, the point is there is, so you either argue MWI is false, but your argument is pointeless if MWI is true, that's the way it is. Well I'm certainly not dogmatically assuming MWI. In fact I'm testing whether it leads to absurdities. If the only continuations are quite different from what you think of as Quentin Anciaux, do they still count? The only thing that count is 1st POV... So *you* Quentin Anciaux (incidentally, how do pronounce that?) don't necessarily continue. It is just that there is a continuation of 1p POVs. So we're down to the question of what constitutes a 1p POV. And I don't think you can just rely on the continuity of Hilbert space evolution because the time scale of that evolution can be much faster than the sequences of conscious thought. So as far QM goes you could evolve from Quentin Anciaux to Neo (or to Brent Meeker) in a millisecond. - Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns, e.g. you wake up from having dreamed a whole life which led to you being shot, or you discover you are just participating in a simulation in which you were shot, or you're not really Quentin Anciaux, or... Did you read Divided by Infinity? RSSA is of use, ASSA not much at all. So have you bought an annuity for your retirement? You confuse things... RSSA is important, and that's why you buy a life insurance. Life insurance I understand, it is for other people that survive you (in almost all worlds). But an annuity is for yourself, so that you don't outlive your savings in your retirement. So what ? So if you think you will live much longer than the insurance companies think you will, you should buy an annuity for your (very) old age. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 1:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 1:02 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 12:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute probability of being alive, probability is only meaningful between two moments... But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future, This is ASSA and that can become arbitrarily small, and in fact it is arbitrarily small If absolute measure makes sense, then your absolute measure is always decreasing, still in MWI, as there is always a next moment (which will be as *real* as the previous one), I don't see how ASSA is relevant for the question. I guess it depends on how you value future states. If only those you exist in matter then you can ignore the ASSA. No need for life insurance. No concern about global warming. That does not follow... RSSA is moment to moment... If you have a gun in front of you and you shoot in your head and if MWI is true, there will be more branches where you are crippled than where you are perfectly safe (and a hell of a lot more where you're dead, but *we don't count where you're not*). But that's part of what bothers me about this idea. How crippled/brain-damaged can you be and still count as a continuation? Are there degrees of continuation? As long as you still feel you, that counts. If so, why can't the degrees asymptote to zero? It is, reread my previous message, there is a continuum of such continuations. The one that don't count are the one where nothing is left from you. I would say also, there is a continuum but by RSSA, nearest continuation should have higher probability. - so all rational decisions will be based on assuming it becomes zero. Right? I don't see how decisions come into play here, rational decisions depends on the one taking them... I would rationally choose to minimize arm for me (so as not to put my life in jeopardy), because if MWI is true *and* with RSSA, me in front on a shotgun, will likely result me being crippled while not dead with a hell lot more probability than being perfectly safe But most such events, like being shot with a shotgun, are essentially classical which implies that your continuations depend on extremely improbable events Sure, but the point is *ẗhere is a continuation*; that's all what is needed for the argument to follow. There is a continuation seems to slough over what counts as a continuation and whether we should care about it. There is a continuum of continuations, the point is there is, so you either argue MWI is false, but your argument is pointeless if MWI is true, that's the way it is. Well I'm certainly not dogmatically assuming MWI. In fact I'm testing whether it leads to absurdities. Sure, the point is that if MWI is true, the argument follows. If the only continuations are quite different from what you think of as Quentin Anciaux, do they still count? The only thing that count is 1st POV... So *you* Quentin Anciaux (incidentally, how do pronounce that?) don't necessarily continue. It is just that there is a continuation of 1p POVs. So we're down to the question of what constitutes a 1p POV. I know what is my own, don't know for you, but I assume you do know it for yourself. And I don't think you can just rely on the continuity of Hilbert space evolution because the time scale of that evolution can be much faster than the sequences of conscious thought. So as far QM goes you could evolve from Quentin Anciaux to Neo (or to Brent Meeker) in a millisecond. - Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns, e.g. you wake up from having dreamed a whole life which led to you being shot, or you discover you are just participating in a simulation in which you were shot, or you're not really Quentin Anciaux, or... Did you read Divided by Infinity? RSSA is of use, ASSA not much at all. So have you bought an annuity for your retirement? You confuse things... RSSA is important, and that's why you buy a life insurance. Life insurance I understand, it is for other people that survive you (in almost all worlds). But an annuity is for yourself, so that you don't outlive your savings in your retirement. So what ? So if you think you will live much longer than the insurance companies think you will, you should buy an annuity for your (very) old age. Maybe we should. Brent -- 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,
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
Every one of the perhaps inifinite copies of you will grow old and die in less than 150 years. There is no quantum immortality On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 1:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 1:02 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 12:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute probability of being alive, probability is only meaningful between two moments... But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future, This is ASSA and that can become arbitrarily small, and in fact it is arbitrarily small If absolute measure makes sense, then your absolute measure is always decreasing, still in MWI, as there is always a next moment (which will be as *real* as the previous one), I don't see how ASSA is relevant for the question. I guess it depends on how you value future states. If only those you exist in matter then you can ignore the ASSA. No need for life insurance. No concern about global warming. That does not follow... RSSA is moment to moment... If you have a gun in front of you and you shoot in your head and if MWI is true, there will be more branches where you are crippled than where you are perfectly safe (and a hell of a lot more where you're dead, but *we don't count where you're not*). But that's part of what bothers me about this idea. How crippled/brain-damaged can you be and still count as a continuation? Are there degrees of continuation? As long as you still feel you, that counts. If so, why can't the degrees asymptote to zero? It is, reread my previous message, there is a continuum of such continuations. The one that don't count are the one where nothing is left from you. I would say also, there is a continuum but by RSSA, nearest continuation should have higher probability. - so all rational decisions will be based on assuming it becomes zero. Right? I don't see how decisions come into play here, rational decisions depends on the one taking them... I would rationally choose to minimize arm for me (so as not to put my life in jeopardy), because if MWI is true *and* with RSSA, me in front on a shotgun, will likely result me being crippled while not dead with a hell lot more probability than being perfectly safe But most such events, like being shot with a shotgun, are essentially classical which implies that your continuations depend on extremely improbable events Sure, but the point is *ẗhere is a continuation*; that's all what is needed for the argument to follow. There is a continuation seems to slough over what counts as a continuation and whether we should care about it. There is a continuum of continuations, the point is there is, so you either argue MWI is false, but your argument is pointeless if MWI is true, that's the way it is. Well I'm certainly not dogmatically assuming MWI. In fact I'm testing whether it leads to absurdities. Sure, the point is that if MWI is true, the argument follows. If the only continuations are quite different from what you think of as Quentin Anciaux, do they still count? The only thing that count is 1st POV... So *you* Quentin Anciaux (incidentally, how do pronounce that?) don't necessarily continue. It is just that there is a continuation of 1p POVs. So we're down to the question of what constitutes a 1p POV. I know what is my own, don't know for you, but I assume you do know it for yourself. And I don't think you can just rely on the continuity of Hilbert space evolution because the time scale of that evolution can be much faster than the sequences of conscious thought. So as far QM goes you could evolve from Quentin Anciaux to Neo (or to Brent Meeker) in a millisecond. - Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns, e.g. you wake up from having dreamed a whole life which led to you being shot, or you discover you are just participating in a simulation in which you were shot, or you're not really Quentin Anciaux, or... Did you read Divided by Infinity? RSSA is of use, ASSA not much at all. So have you bought an annuity for your retirement? You confuse things... RSSA is important, and that's why you buy a life insurance. Life insurance I understand, it is for other people that survive you (in almost all worlds). But an annuity is for yourself, so that you don't outlive your savings in your retirement. So what ? So if you think you will live much longer than the insurance companies think you will, you should buy an annuity for your (very) old age. Maybe we should. Brent -- You received this message because you
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
Liz wrote: (and I try to interject my remarks in plain lettering) *Sequence is determinative because that's how the universe works. * I would say: how WE explain the workings of the universe (- rather Multiverse). * Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day, to the last syllable of recorded time. * Ditto *That's the second law doing its thing, and unless you've got very good reason to think otherwise, you shouldn't be surprised that it is. * Laws are our deduction of the majority-observed phenomena.They do not regulate Nature: WE think they are Nature's laws. - So far... *All we're saying is that you should be unsurprised to find yourself living your life in ascending order. * Order? as we regulate our views (including those 'laws') *You have to pass through your current age at some point, unless you die first, and you should expect to do so before you reach a greater age. If at your current age you ask how probable it is that you are your current age, the answer is 1. If you're quantum immortal then you will have the same probability every time you ask yourself that question into the indefinite future. You are always 100% likely to be your present age...* Unless you dream... BTW LIKELY is not = Probability 1. The P-word reflects on our PRESENT (very incomplete) views and does not include a sequence (if it is not '1'). Just musing JM On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 9:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 November 2013 14:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/11/2013 4:29 PM, LizR wrote: On 12 November 2013 13:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/11/2013 3:39 PM, LizR wrote: On 12 November 2013 09:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/11/2013 11:21 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: You find you every day, according to you, every day should not happen, only being 10¹⁰⁰ is likely, it's just non-sense, your life is not random sampled, yesterday happen before today and before tomorrow. That doesn't make today less likely than tomorrow. Sure, but it makes the interval (0,75) less likely than the interval (75, inf). Unless you're Billy Pilgrim from Slaughterhouse 5 this argument doesn't make sense, beause you are forced to sample your days in ascending order. But what does that have to do with the probabilities? A sample is when I ask myself, how probable is it that my age is what it is today. I don't have to do this everyday. In fact I'm very unlikely to have done it before age 4. So I don't see why sequence is determinative. ISTM is only implies that tomorrow will be less likely than today (since I may not ask tomorrow; possibly because I'm dead). Sequence is determinative because that's how the universe works. Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day, to the last syllable of recorded time. That's the second law doing its thing, and unless you've got very good reason to think otherwise, you shouldn't be surprised that it is. All we're saying is that you should be unsurprised to find yourself living your life in ascending order. You have to pass through your current age at some point, unless you die first, and you should expect to do so before you reach a greater age. If at your current age you ask how probable it is that you are your current age, the answer is 1. If you're quantum immortal then you will have the same probability every time you ask yourself that question into the indefinite future. You are always 100% likely to be your present age! Suppose you're Benjamin Button. For him would it be OK to say it's surprising I'm only 75? I don't know anything about Benjamin Button. Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse. Oh, right, like the guy in Martin Amis' Time's Arrow (itself a rip off from An Age by Brian Aldiss). Presumably according to QTI he's at the end of an infinite future lifetime, or whatever? But since he's unphysical I guess we can say what we like about him. So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? My normal inference is that everyone dies. Apparently the QTI throws doubt on this by pointing out that we have only sampled an infinitesimal proportion of the available branches of the multiverse, and that in another infinitesimal portion there might be people who live forever (somehow). What is your inference from the fact that everywhere you've ever travelled has been on or near the surface of a congenial planet supplied with air, water and all the necessities of life? -- 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
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/12/2013 1:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: So *you* Quentin Anciaux (incidentally, how do pronounce that?) don't necessarily continue. It is just that there is a continuation of 1p POVs. So we're down to the question of what constitutes a 1p POV. I know what is my own, don't know for you, but I assume you do know it for yourself. Yes, but how do I know it? Is it a matter of perceiving temporal overlap of thoughts - no, because then I woudn't be the same person after anesthesia. Is it a matter of memories - that seems plausible; although I don't seem to need very many memories or access them often to be me. Is it a matter, as comp suggests, of realizing the Brent input-output function in the brain? Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 1:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: So *you* Quentin Anciaux (incidentally, how do pronounce that?) don't necessarily continue. It is just that there is a continuation of 1p POVs. So we're down to the question of what constitutes a 1p POV. I know what is my own, don't know for you, but I assume you do know it for yourself. Yes, but how do I know it? I don't know, I just know I'm conscious here and non and I'm me, I can't explain why, I just know it. Quentin Is it a matter of perceiving temporal overlap of thoughts - no, because then I woudn't be the same person after anesthesia. Is it a matter of memories - that seems plausible; although I don't seem to need very many memories or access them often to be me. Is it a matter, as comp suggests, of realizing the Brent input-output function in the brain? Brent -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
2013/11/13 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 1:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: So *you* Quentin Anciaux (incidentally, how do pronounce that?) don't necessarily continue. It is just that there is a continuation of 1p POVs. So we're down to the question of what constitutes a 1p POV. I know what is my own, don't know for you, but I assume you do know it for yourself. Yes, but how do I know it? I don't know, I just know I'm conscious here and non read now not non and I'm me, I can't explain why, I just know it. Quentin Is it a matter of perceiving temporal overlap of thoughts - no, because then I woudn't be the same person after anesthesia. Is it a matter of memories - that seems plausible; although I don't seem to need very many memories or access them often to be me. Is it a matter, as comp suggests, of realizing the Brent input-output function in the brain? Brent -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
2013/11/12 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com Every one of the perhaps inifinite copies of you will grow old and die in less than 150 years. There is no quantum immortality Well it's cool asserting things... but you should develop more, all I'm saying is that if MWI is true, the argument follows. It's clear that if you use other premisses it follows or it doesn't, but without knowing more I don't know, but as you seems sure, please develop. Plus I'm not arguing that MWI is true (or that QI is true for that matter), just following the consequences if MWI is true. Quentin On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 1:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 1:02 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 12:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute probability of being alive, probability is only meaningful between two moments... But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future, This is ASSA and that can become arbitrarily small, and in fact it is arbitrarily small If absolute measure makes sense, then your absolute measure is always decreasing, still in MWI, as there is always a next moment (which will be as *real* as the previous one), I don't see how ASSA is relevant for the question. I guess it depends on how you value future states. If only those you exist in matter then you can ignore the ASSA. No need for life insurance. No concern about global warming. That does not follow... RSSA is moment to moment... If you have a gun in front of you and you shoot in your head and if MWI is true, there will be more branches where you are crippled than where you are perfectly safe (and a hell of a lot more where you're dead, but *we don't count where you're not*). But that's part of what bothers me about this idea. How crippled/brain-damaged can you be and still count as a continuation? Are there degrees of continuation? As long as you still feel you, that counts. If so, why can't the degrees asymptote to zero? It is, reread my previous message, there is a continuum of such continuations. The one that don't count are the one where nothing is left from you. I would say also, there is a continuum but by RSSA, nearest continuation should have higher probability. - so all rational decisions will be based on assuming it becomes zero. Right? I don't see how decisions come into play here, rational decisions depends on the one taking them... I would rationally choose to minimize arm for me (so as not to put my life in jeopardy), because if MWI is true *and* with RSSA, me in front on a shotgun, will likely result me being crippled while not dead with a hell lot more probability than being perfectly safe But most such events, like being shot with a shotgun, are essentially classical which implies that your continuations depend on extremely improbable events Sure, but the point is *ẗhere is a continuation*; that's all what is needed for the argument to follow. There is a continuation seems to slough over what counts as a continuation and whether we should care about it. There is a continuum of continuations, the point is there is, so you either argue MWI is false, but your argument is pointeless if MWI is true, that's the way it is. Well I'm certainly not dogmatically assuming MWI. In fact I'm testing whether it leads to absurdities. Sure, the point is that if MWI is true, the argument follows. If the only continuations are quite different from what you think of as Quentin Anciaux, do they still count? The only thing that count is 1st POV... So *you* Quentin Anciaux (incidentally, how do pronounce that?) don't necessarily continue. It is just that there is a continuation of 1p POVs. So we're down to the question of what constitutes a 1p POV. I know what is my own, don't know for you, but I assume you do know it for yourself. And I don't think you can just rely on the continuity of Hilbert space evolution because the time scale of that evolution can be much faster than the sequences of conscious thought. So as far QM goes you could evolve from Quentin Anciaux to Neo (or to Brent Meeker) in a millisecond. - Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns, e.g. you wake up from having dreamed a whole life which led to you being shot, or you discover you are just participating in a simulation in which you were shot, or you're not really Quentin Anciaux, or... Did you read Divided by Infinity? RSSA is of use, ASSA not much at all. So have you bought an annuity for your retirement? You confuse things... RSSA is important, and
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 13 November 2013 10:30, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: But that's part of what bothers me about this idea. How crippled/brain-damaged can you be and still count as a continuation? Are there degrees of continuation? If so, why can't the degrees asymptote to zero? That bothers me too. It hinges on the critical question of whether you can have degrees of consciousness (rather than of awareness). If consciousness is a binary thing then thee are no degrees and you remain conscious in all branches that count as continuations (though horribly wounded in some - which is also a bother). -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 13 November 2013 11:12, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Every one of the perhaps inifinite copies of you will grow old and die in less than 150 years. There is no quantum immortality A pretty bold statement. I don't see that the laws of physics require this - there must be a small chance of living to be 200, e.g. if a load of cosmic rays miss your DNA by some miracle? Or something similar. Of course you end up rather frail in 99.% of the branches, so QTI seems to suggest an eternity of being not quite dead. Not a great prospect... -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
Le 12 nov. 2013 22:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net a écrit : On 11/12/2013 1:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 1:02 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 12:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute probability of being alive, probability is only meaningful between two moments... But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future, This is ASSA and that can become arbitrarily small, and in fact it is arbitrarily small If absolute measure makes sense, then your absolute measure is always decreasing, still in MWI, as there is always a next moment (which will be as *real* as the previous one), I don't see how ASSA is relevant for the question. I guess it depends on how you value future states. If only those you exist in matter then you can ignore the ASSA. No need for life insurance. No concern about global warming. That does not follow... RSSA is moment to moment... If you have a gun in front of you and you shoot in your head and if MWI is true, there will be more branches where you are crippled than where you are perfectly safe (and a hell of a lot more where you're dead, but *we don't count where you're not*). But that's part of what bothers me about this idea. How crippled/brain-damaged can you be and still count as a continuation? Are there degrees of continuation? As long as you still feel you, that counts. If so, why can't the degrees asymptote to zero? It is, reread my previous message, there is a continuum of such continuations. The one that don't count are the one where nothing is left from you. I would say also, there is a continuum but by RSSA, nearest continuation should have higher probability. - so all rational decisions will be based on assuming it becomes zero. Right? I don't see how decisions come into play here, rational decisions depends on the one taking them... I would rationally choose to minimize arm for me (so as not to put my life in jeopardy), because if MWI is true *and* with RSSA, me in front on a shotgun, will likely result me being crippled while not dead with a hell lot more probability than being perfectly safe But most such events, like being shot with a shotgun, are essentially classical which implies that your continuations depend on extremely improbable events Sure, but the point is *ẗhere is a continuation*; that's all what is needed for the argument to follow. There is a continuation seems to slough over what counts as a continuation and whether we should care about it. There is a continuum of continuations, the point is there is, so you either argue MWI is false, but your argument is pointeless if MWI is true, that's the way it is. Well I'm certainly not dogmatically assuming MWI. In fact I'm testing whether it leads to absurdities. If the only continuations are quite different from what you think of as Quentin Anciaux, do they still count? The only thing that count is 1st POV... So *you* Quentin Anciaux (incidentally, how do pronounce that?) It is pronounced like this : An like in the end of restaurant. Ci like sea. Aux like oh. Quentin don't necessarily continue. It is just that there is a continuation of 1p POVs. So we're down to the question of what constitutes a 1p POV. And I don't think you can just rely on the continuity of Hilbert space evolution because the time scale of that evolution can be much faster than the sequences of conscious thought. So as far QM goes you could evolve from Quentin Anciaux to Neo (or to Brent Meeker) in a millisecond. - Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns, e.g. you wake up from having dreamed a whole life which led to you being shot, or you discover you are just participating in a simulation in which you were shot, or you're not really Quentin Anciaux, or... Did you read Divided by Infinity? RSSA is of use, ASSA not much at all. So have you bought an annuity for your retirement? You confuse things... RSSA is important, and that's why you buy a life insurance. Life insurance I understand, it is for other people that survive you (in almost all worlds). But an annuity is for yourself, so that you don't outlive your savings in your retirement. So what ? So if you think you will live much longer than the insurance companies think you will, you should buy an annuity for your (very) old age. Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 13 November 2013 11:16, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Liz wrote: (and I try to interject my remarks in plain lettering) *Sequence is determinative because that's how the universe works. * I would say: how WE explain the workings of the universe (- rather Multiverse). Yes of course but so far the second law of thermodynamics has held up pretty well. * Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day, to the last syllable of recorded time. * Ditto *That's the second law doing its thing, and unless you've got very good reason to think otherwise, you shouldn't be surprised that it is. * Laws are our deduction of the majority-observed phenomena.They do not regulate Nature: WE think they are Nature's laws. - So far... Yes of course. But we have to agree to some things in order to have a meaningful discussion. Saying we may be wrong about the laws of physics is not a good enough answer to my objections to Brent's use of Bayesian arguments concerning his chance of finding himself at a particular age. Could you address the point at issue rather than using the mystical gambit ? *All we're saying is that you should be unsurprised to find yourself living your life in ascending order. * Order? as we regulate our views (including those 'laws') What? *You have to pass through your current age at some point, unless you die first, and you should expect to do so before you reach a greater age. If at your current age you ask how probable it is that you are your current age, the answer is 1. If you're quantum immortal then you will have the same probability every time you ask yourself that question into the indefinite future. You are always 100% likely to be your present age...* Unless you dream... BTW LIKELY is not = Probability 1. The P-word reflects on our PRESENT (very incomplete) views and does not include a sequence (if it is not '1'). What?? -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 13 November 2013 11:22, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/12/2013 1:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: So *you* Quentin Anciaux (incidentally, how do pronounce that?) don't necessarily continue. It is just that there is a continuation of 1p POVs. So we're down to the question of what constitutes a 1p POV. I know what is my own, don't know for you, but I assume you do know it for yourself. Yes, but how do I know it? Is it a matter of perceiving temporal overlap of thoughts - no, because then I woudn't be the same person after anesthesia. Is it a matter of memories - that seems plausible; although I don't seem to need very many memories or access them often to be me. Is it a matter, as comp suggests, of realizing the Brent input-output function in the brain? You don't know if your memories are accurate or that you are the same person as you were a second before, or anything else to do with the *contents* of your consciousness. What you do know is that you're having your present experiences and thinking your present thoughts. -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:15 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/12/2013 2:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Both with Comp and with Everett-QM we have lost that unique theoretical evidence, because our best current explanation (comp, or QM) makes that mind-brain identity non sensical. I don't see anything about QM that makes mind is what a brain does non-sensical. Quantum immortality relies on it: QM implies material objects exist as states in Hilbert space which evolve unitarily. If mind and brain are not one-to-one, then your duplication thought experiments don't work as arguments. I think Bruno may be criticizing the mind-brain identity (a.k.a type-physicalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_physicalism ) which holds there is a one-to-one mapping, where the more modern theories of mind (functionalism, computationalism, etc.) subscribe to multiple realizeability, which implies it is not a one-to-one identity, but rather a a many-to-one (many_physical_states-to-one_mind_state) theory ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_physicalism#Criticism_and_replies ). 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 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:45 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/12/2013 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2013, at 04:44, meekerdb wrote: Experience may be like that; everything has 'experience', it's just not human experience and when you stop having human experience you're dead. Why? If by dying we remember being something different from human, I would still feel like I am surviving. (Amazingly, salvia can lead to such an experience/hallucination). Yes, if you remember. But I don't remember anything earlier than about age 4 and neither do other people I know. Which then implies that we are not past eternal and so it is possible to not be future eternal. You may be jumping to conclusions. All that implies is that you don't currently have access to infinite memories. Having infinite memories, and having access to infinite memories, are quite different from having an eternal past. Jason Also, with comp, not everything has experience. Only persons, and they need the support of some computational self-reference ability. And brains provide that support. Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Every one of the perhaps inifinite copies of you will grow old and die in less than 150 years. There is no quantum immortality I guess that settles it. 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 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/12/2013 4:13 PM, LizR wrote: On 13 November 2013 11:22, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/12/2013 1:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: So *you* Quentin Anciaux (incidentally, how do pronounce that?) don't necessarily continue. It is just that there is a continuation of 1p POVs. So we're down to the question of what constitutes a 1p POV. I know what is my own, don't know for you, but I assume you do know it for yourself. Yes, but how do I know it? Is it a matter of perceiving temporal overlap of thoughts - no, because then I woudn't be the same person after anesthesia. Is it a matter of memories - that seems plausible; although I don't seem to need very many memories or access them often to be me. Is it a matter, as comp suggests, of realizing the Brent input-output function in the brain? You don't know if your memories are accurate or that you are the same person as you were a second before, or anything else to do with the /contents/ of your consciousness. What you do know is that you're having your present experiences and thinking your present thoughts. But I think that fuzzes up the idea of continuation. If consciousness is a set of disconnected observer moments then continuation can only refer to some inherent similarities that suffices to order these moments. I don't think conscious thoughts, which last maybe 100msec, have sufficient content to do this. On the other hand, because of their duration, I think they overlap preceding and succeeding thoughts. The brain, as a neural net, can have thoughts in various stages of becoming conscious or producing actions. But that model implies that the continuity is due to physical processes which are not conscious (or in Bruno's model they are at the much lower level). But that implies not all brain processes entail some consciousness. MWI implies continuity at the physics level, but not at the consciousness level. Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:57 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 November 2013 11:12, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Every one of the perhaps inifinite copies of you will grow old and die in less than 150 years. There is no quantum immortality A pretty bold statement. I don't see that the laws of physics require this - there must be a small chance of living to be 200, e.g. if a load of cosmic rays miss your DNA by some miracle? Or something similar. Of course you end up rather frail in 99.% of the branches, so QTI seems to suggest an eternity of being not quite dead. Not a great prospect... Eventually the probability of the simulation hypothesis ( http://www.simulation-argument.com/faq.html ) takes over. The simulation hypothesis (that you exist in a simulation) essentially is already 100% if you believe in MWI. The question is what proportion of your explanations are simulations. Say it is 1%. Then when the probability of your organic survival drops ever lower in the many worlds, then your survival through the simulation hypothesis becomes increasingly likely. 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 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/12/2013 4:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:45 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/12/2013 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2013, at 04:44, meekerdb wrote: Experience may be like that; everything has 'experience', it's just not human experience and when you stop having human experience you're dead. Why? If by dying we remember being something different from human, I would still feel like I am surviving. (Amazingly, salvia can lead to such an experience/hallucination). Yes, if you remember. But I don't remember anything earlier than about age 4 and neither do other people I know. Which then implies that we are not past eternal and so it is possible to not be future eternal. You may be jumping to conclusions. All that implies is that you don't currently have access to infinite memories. Having infinite memories, and having access to infinite memories, are quite different from having an eternal past. Of course I don't even have access to memories of last Nov 12. It's not the absence of memories of 1000yrs ago, it's absence of *all* memory before 1944. Is it your theory that there is a first Brent experience, which was not the continuation of any prior experience, an experiencless predecessor. I could buy that, since I've been unconscious a few times. But then that seems to allow there are experiences with no continuation in the sense of continuity. They are just connected by memories or other similarities. Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/12/2013 5:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:57 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 November 2013 11:12, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote: Every one of the perhaps inifinite copies of you will grow old and die in less than 150 years. There is no quantum immortality A pretty bold statement. I don't see that the laws of physics require this - there must be a small chance of living to be 200, e.g. if a load of cosmic rays miss your DNA by some miracle? Or something similar. Of course you end up rather frail in 99.% of the branches, so QTI seems to suggest an eternity of being not quite dead. Not a great prospect... Eventually the probability of the simulation hypothesis ( http://www.simulation-argument.com/faq.html ) takes over. The simulation hypothesis (that you exist in a simulation) essentially is already 100% if you believe in MWI. The question is what proportion of your explanations are simulations. Say it is 1%. Then when the probability of your organic survival drops ever lower in the many worlds, then your survival through the simulation hypothesis becomes increasingly likely. ?? What's the difference between the simulation and 'another world' (or this world for that matter)? Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:18 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/12/2013 4:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:45 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/12/2013 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2013, at 04:44, meekerdb wrote: Experience may be like that; everything has 'experience', it's just not human experience and when you stop having human experience you're dead. Why? If by dying we remember being something different from human, I would still feel like I am surviving. (Amazingly, salvia can lead to such an experience/hallucination). Yes, if you remember. But I don't remember anything earlier than about age 4 and neither do other people I know. Which then implies that we are not past eternal and so it is possible to not be future eternal. You may be jumping to conclusions. All that implies is that you don't currently have access to infinite memories. Having infinite memories, and having access to infinite memories, are quite different from having an eternal past. Of course I don't even have access to memories of last Nov 12. It's not the absence of memories of 1000yrs ago, it's absence of *all* memory before 1944. Sure, but there may be other explanations for that: 1. Tunneling through a diminished state of conscious, as someone falling asleep or dying into Brent Meeker the fetus, or Brent Meeker waking up this morning. 2. Engaging in an ancestor simulation as a member of an advanced technological race (future humans or aliens) to experience life as a human. 3. A God-like mind who has decided to temporarily forget what it is like to be God. Is it your theory that there is a first Brent experience, which was not the continuation of any prior experience, an experiencless predecessor. All experience may be cyclical in the very long run, going through every state of consciousness eventually. I think this may be implied if there is always some initial conscious state from which all conscious states emerge (and perhaps all eventually return). I could buy that, since I've been unconscious a few times. But then that seems to allow there are experiences with no continuation in the sense of continuity. They are just connected by memories or other similarities. There is a continuation from being anesthetized to waking up from anesthesia. Would you say the same true for an amnesiac being anesthetized? 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 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:20 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/12/2013 5:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:57 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 November 2013 11:12, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Every one of the perhaps inifinite copies of you will grow old and die in less than 150 years. There is no quantum immortality A pretty bold statement. I don't see that the laws of physics require this - there must be a small chance of living to be 200, e.g. if a load of cosmic rays miss your DNA by some miracle? Or something similar. Of course you end up rather frail in 99.% of the branches, so QTI seems to suggest an eternity of being not quite dead. Not a great prospect... Eventually the probability of the simulation hypothesis ( http://www.simulation-argument.com/faq.html ) takes over. The simulation hypothesis (that you exist in a simulation) essentially is already 100% if you believe in MWI. The question is what proportion of your explanations are simulations. Say it is 1%. Then when the probability of your organic survival drops ever lower in the many worlds, then your survival through the simulation hypothesis becomes increasingly likely. ?? What's the difference between the simulation and 'another world' (or this world for that matter)? The difference is the world that is simulating ours has access to information about ours, and we/our memories may continue there (in that other universe). Therefore, we can survive even the heat death of this universe. 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 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/12/2013 5:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: There is a continuation from being anesthetized to waking up from anesthesia. Did you leave out a no? There is a continuation, but not of consciousness. Would you say the same true for an amnesiac being anesthetized? I think so. An amnesiac is just someone who can't remember some significant block of time that almost anyone else would. Last January while vacationing in Hawaii my daughter went down the beach and took a class in surfing. According to the instructor she did fine and nothing strange happened. She came back to the hotel, went in and took a shower. When she came out of the shower she realized that she could not remember *anything* about that day. She also had short term memory problems, e.g. she would repeat something she had just said a minute before. We took her to the hospital; they couldn't find any cause and finally just said, Well that happens sometimes to people and nobody knows why. Over the next day her short term memory became normal - but she still doesn't remember that day. Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 13 November 2013 14:09, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.comwrote: Every one of the perhaps inifinite copies of you will grow old and die in less than 150 years. There is no quantum immortality I guess that settles it. Phew, glad we got that sorted 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
Simple. Shooting yourself with a gun or whatever means you use to end your life in one universe does not guarranttee that you do not grow in all other universes. Unless the laws of physics differ across the multiverse, which I understand to be incorrect, your copies will grow old and die in every universe. On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/11/12 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com Every one of the perhaps inifinite copies of you will grow old and die in less than 150 years. There is no quantum immortality Well it's cool asserting things... but you should develop more, all I'm saying is that if MWI is true, the argument follows. It's clear that if you use other premisses it follows or it doesn't, but without knowing more I don't know, but as you seems sure, please develop. Plus I'm not arguing that MWI is true (or that QI is true for that matter), just following the consequences if MWI is true. Quentin On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 1:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 1:02 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 12:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute probability of being alive, probability is only meaningful between two moments... But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future, This is ASSA and that can become arbitrarily small, and in fact it is arbitrarily small If absolute measure makes sense, then your absolute measure is always decreasing, still in MWI, as there is always a next moment (which will be as *real* as the previous one), I don't see how ASSA is relevant for the question. I guess it depends on how you value future states. If only those you exist in matter then you can ignore the ASSA. No need for life insurance. No concern about global warming. That does not follow... RSSA is moment to moment... If you have a gun in front of you and you shoot in your head and if MWI is true, there will be more branches where you are crippled than where you are perfectly safe (and a hell of a lot more where you're dead, but *we don't count where you're not*). But that's part of what bothers me about this idea. How crippled/brain-damaged can you be and still count as a continuation? Are there degrees of continuation? As long as you still feel you, that counts. If so, why can't the degrees asymptote to zero? It is, reread my previous message, there is a continuum of such continuations. The one that don't count are the one where nothing is left from you. I would say also, there is a continuum but by RSSA, nearest continuation should have higher probability. - so all rational decisions will be based on assuming it becomes zero. Right? I don't see how decisions come into play here, rational decisions depends on the one taking them... I would rationally choose to minimize arm for me (so as not to put my life in jeopardy), because if MWI is true *and* with RSSA, me in front on a shotgun, will likely result me being crippled while not dead with a hell lot more probability than being perfectly safe But most such events, like being shot with a shotgun, are essentially classical which implies that your continuations depend on extremely improbable events Sure, but the point is *ẗhere is a continuation*; that's all what is needed for the argument to follow. There is a continuation seems to slough over what counts as a continuation and whether we should care about it. There is a continuum of continuations, the point is there is, so you either argue MWI is false, but your argument is pointeless if MWI is true, that's the way it is. Well I'm certainly not dogmatically assuming MWI. In fact I'm testing whether it leads to absurdities. Sure, the point is that if MWI is true, the argument follows. If the only continuations are quite different from what you think of as Quentin Anciaux, do they still count? The only thing that count is 1st POV... So *you* Quentin Anciaux (incidentally, how do pronounce that?) don't necessarily continue. It is just that there is a continuation of 1p POVs. So we're down to the question of what constitutes a 1p POV. I know what is my own, don't know for you, but I assume you do know it for yourself. And I don't think you can just rely on the continuity of Hilbert space evolution because the time scale of that evolution can be much faster than the sequences of conscious thought. So as far QM goes you could evolve from Quentin Anciaux to Neo (or to Brent Meeker) in a millisecond. - Rumsfeld's unknown
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 13 November 2013 16:19, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Simple. Shooting yourself with a gun or whatever means you use to end your life in one universe does not guarranttee that you do not grow in all other universes. Unless the laws of physics differ across the multiverse, which I understand to be incorrect, your copies will grow old and die in every universe. I think it would help if you put your comment beneath whatever you were replying to. :) However, assuming I understand what you're saying I will attempt a reply... The laws of physics don't *mandate* growing old and dying, they just make it overwhelmingly likely. But in a multiverse everything happens, even incredibly unlikely things... -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
My email service does not allow me to interleave comments. Regarding your reply, the laws of biophysics does MANDATE growing old and dying. I think the more advanced understanding of the multiverse is that incredibly unlikely things do not happen. As I recall the argument was based on decoherence and the relationship of frequency of a particular universe to probability. So if a universe is unlikely, it will take a longtime to materialize. I imagined this to be longer than your lifetime. Richard On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 November 2013 16:19, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Simple. Shooting yourself with a gun or whatever means you use to end your life in one universe does not guarranttee that you do not grow in all other universes. Unless the laws of physics differ across the multiverse, which I understand to be incorrect, your copies will grow old and die in every universe. I think it would help if you put your comment beneath whatever you were replying to. :) However, assuming I understand what you're saying I will attempt a reply... The laws of physics don't *mandate* growing old and dying, they just make it overwhelmingly likely. But in a multiverse everything happens, even incredibly unlikely things... -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/12/2013 7:28 PM, LizR wrote: On 13 November 2013 16:19, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote: Simple. Shooting yourself with a gun or whatever means you use to end your life in one universe does not guarranttee that you do not grow in all other universes. Unless the laws of physics differ across the multiverse, which I understand to be incorrect, your copies will grow old and die in every universe. I think it would help if you put your comment beneath whatever you were replying to. :) However, assuming I understand what you're saying I will attempt a reply... The laws of physics don't /mandate/ growing old and dying, they just make it overwhelmingly likely. But in a multiverse everything happens, even incredibly unlikely things... That's another dubious popularization. Certainly weird things can happen in a QM world. But *everything*? There are still conservation laws, superselection rules, limited speed of signaling. Repeating measurement doesn't produce every value, it produces the same eigenvalue as before. Many QM processes are deterministic in one world, c.f. arXiv:quant-ph/070212v1. Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 13 November 2013 16:51, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: My email service does not allow me to interleave comments. Well in that case maybe you could cut and paste the relevant quote. There was an awful lot of text after your comment, I still have no idea what you were replying to. Regarding your reply, the laws of biophysics does MANDATE growing old and dying. No it doesn't, it's all statistical. The laws of physics only mandate growing old and dying to the extent that they mandate eggs breaking rather than broken eggs reforming into whole ones. However the underlying physics of eggs breaking is a series of time-reversible operations at the atomic level, hence it is possible for broken eggs to mend themselves if all the atomic movements were exactly right, which they never are in practice, of course. But in a multiverse such an unlikely event would occur somewhere. I think the more advanced understanding of the multiverse is that incredibly unlikely things do not happen. In that case it isn't the multiverse of quantum theory, which allows all possible events to occur, including the very unlikely ones. As I recall the argument was based on decoherence and the relationship of frequency of a particular universe to probability. So if a universe is unlikely, it will take a longtime to materialize. I imagined this to be longer than your lifetime. As I understand it the multiverse as envisaged by Everett and Deutsch involves all possible outcomes of a given situation occurring, with no time delay (except for whatever time delay would occur anyway). Decoherence is the mechanism that stops different branches of the multiverse interacting, it has nothing to do with the probability of a branch existing. -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 13 November 2013 17:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/12/2013 7:28 PM, LizR wrote: On 13 November 2013 16:19, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Simple. Shooting yourself with a gun or whatever means you use to end your life in one universe does not guarranttee that you do not grow in all other universes. Unless the laws of physics differ across the multiverse, which I understand to be incorrect, your copies will grow old and die in every universe. I think it would help if you put your comment beneath whatever you were replying to. :) However, assuming I understand what you're saying I will attempt a reply... The laws of physics don't *mandate* growing old and dying, they just make it overwhelmingly likely. But in a multiverse everything happens, even incredibly unlikely things... That's another dubious popularization. Certainly weird things can happen in a QM world. But *everything*? There are still conservation laws, superselection rules, limited speed of signaling. Repeating measurement doesn't produce every value, it produces the same eigenvalue as before. Many QM processes are deterministic in one world, c.f. arXiv:quant-ph/070212v1. I apologise for my over hasty phraseology. I meant to say everything that is physically possible happens - i.e. all physically possible outcomes of each (apparently probabalistic) quantum event. I didn't mean to imply that *physically impossible* things happen (and it would have been nice if you'd done me the courtesy of thinking that perhaps that was what I meant, rather than assuming that oh, she must be spouting dubious popularisations! as you appear to have done.) -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/12/2013 8:08 PM, LizR wrote: On 13 November 2013 17:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/12/2013 7:28 PM, LizR wrote: On 13 November 2013 16:19, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote: Simple. Shooting yourself with a gun or whatever means you use to end your life in one universe does not guarranttee that you do not grow in all other universes. Unless the laws of physics differ across the multiverse, which I understand to be incorrect, your copies will grow old and die in every universe. I think it would help if you put your comment beneath whatever you were replying to. :) However, assuming I understand what you're saying I will attempt a reply... The laws of physics don't /mandate/ growing old and dying, they just make it overwhelmingly likely. But in a multiverse everything happens, even incredibly unlikely things... That's another dubious popularization. Certainly weird things can happen in a QM world. But *everything*? There are still conservation laws, superselection rules, limited speed of signaling. Repeating measurement doesn't produce every value, it produces the same eigenvalue as before. Many QM processes are deterministic in one world, c.f. arXiv:quant-ph/070212v1. I apologise for my over hasty phraseology. I meant to say everything that is physically possible happens - i.e. all physically possible outcomes of each (apparently probabalistic) quantum event. I didn't mean to imply that /physically impossible/ things happen (and it would have been nice if you'd done me the courtesy of thinking that perhaps that was what I meant, rather than assuming that oh, she must be spouting dubious popularisations! as you appear to have done.) Sorry. Didn't mean to offend. But it's a point that bothers me about a lot of these everything theories. Yes, they only mean everything that is possible - but that could be a big hole in theory when you start to talk about really strange things. For example, holographic theory (combined with QM) limits the amount of information within a Hubble radius. It's not immediately obvious whether that prohibits some evolution of the quantum state or not, but it's plausible that it does. Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 8:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/12/2013 5:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: There is a continuation from being anesthetized to waking up from anesthesia. Did you leave out a no? It was intentional, I meant there is a continuation, as in subjectively one moment leads directly to the next. There is a continuation, but not of consciousness. But isn't there? Are you saying you don't survive general anesthesia? Does it not seem like you are conscious one moment, then conscious of the next? Would you say the same true for an amnesiac being anesthetized? I think so. An amnesiac is just someone who can't remember some significant block of time that almost anyone else would. Last January while vacationing in Hawaii my daughter went down the beach and took a class in surfing. According to the instructor she did fine and nothing strange happened. She came back to the hotel, went in and took a shower. When she came out of the shower she realized that she could not remember *anything* about that day. She also had short term memory problems, e.g. she would repeat something she had just said a minute before. We took her to the hospital; they couldn't find any cause and finally just said, Well that happens sometimes to people and nobody knows why. Over the next day her short term memory became normal - but she still doesn't remember that day. Interesting, I was not aware that kind of thing can just happen to people. In my hypothetical, however, I meant someone with absolutely no memories. Is it not the case they can have a (subjectively) continuous experience of losing consciousness and regaining it? 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 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Simple. Shooting yourself with a gun or whatever means you use to end your life in one universe does not guarranttee that you do not grow in all other universes. Unless the laws of physics differ across the multiverse, which I understand to be incorrect, your copies will grow old and die in every universe. Richard, see the link I posted earlier, ( http://higgo.com/qti/rplaga.htm ) in which James Higgo suggests that via quantum mechanics, his particles could spontaneously rearrange himself into a younger version of himself, hence he would de-age in a very small fraction of universes in which he exists. 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 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/12/2013 9:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 8:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/12/2013 5:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: There is a continuation from being anesthetized to waking up from anesthesia. Did you leave out a no? It was intentional, I meant there is a continuation, as in subjectively one moment leads directly to the next. There is a continuation, but not of consciousness. But isn't there? Are you saying you don't survive general anesthesia? Does it not seem like you are conscious one moment, then conscious of the next? Yes, but it also seems like there's a gap, a discontinuity in memory and experience. Which is not surprising. Our brains do a lot of creative 'filling in' of our perception of the world. But when the gap gets to big your brain doesn't know what to put in there and you notice the discontinuity. I once crashed off a big jump in a motocross race. I remember going up the face of the jump...and then the next thing I remember is looking up into the face of this guy who was saying, Are you all right? Notice that's the way people usually describe it: ...the next thing I remember was... Would you say the same true for an amnesiac being anesthetized? I think so. An amnesiac is just someone who can't remember some significant block of time that almost anyone else would. Last January while vacationing in Hawaii my daughter went down the beach and took a class in surfing. According to the instructor she did fine and nothing strange happened. She came back to the hotel, went in and took a shower. When she came out of the shower she realized that she could not remember *anything* about that day. She also had short term memory problems, e.g. she would repeat something she had just said a minute before. We took her to the hospital; they couldn't find any cause and finally just said, Well that happens sometimes to people and nobody knows why. Over the next day her short term memory became normal - but she still doesn't remember that day. Interesting, I was not aware that kind of thing can just happen to people. In my hypothetical, however, I meant someone with absolutely no memories. Is it not the case they can have a (subjectively) continuous experience of losing consciousness and regaining it? But did you mean someone who had no memories before some point? Or did you mean someone who cannot form any memories? I don't think a person who cannot form *any* memories is even conscious, at least in the normal sense. Even the rare clinical case of a person who is said to be unable to form memories, like Gustave Molaison, the person seems to have a memory span of a minute or so. Whether he could notice the gap caused by anesthesia or a concussion, I don't know. Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 13 November 2013 17:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/12/2013 8:08 PM, LizR wrote: On 13 November 2013 17:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/12/2013 7:28 PM, LizR wrote: On 13 November 2013 16:19, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Simple. Shooting yourself with a gun or whatever means you use to end your life in one universe does not guarranttee that you do not grow in all other universes. Unless the laws of physics differ across the multiverse, which I understand to be incorrect, your copies will grow old and die in every universe. I think it would help if you put your comment beneath whatever you were replying to. :) However, assuming I understand what you're saying I will attempt a reply... The laws of physics don't *mandate* growing old and dying, they just make it overwhelmingly likely. But in a multiverse everything happens, even incredibly unlikely things... That's another dubious popularization. Certainly weird things can happen in a QM world. But *everything*? There are still conservation laws, superselection rules, limited speed of signaling. Repeating measurement doesn't produce every value, it produces the same eigenvalue as before. Many QM processes are deterministic in one world, c.f. arXiv:quant-ph/070212v1. I apologise for my over hasty phraseology. I meant to say everything that is physically possible happens - i.e. all physically possible outcomes of each (apparently probabalistic) quantum event. I didn't mean to imply that *physically impossible* things happen (and it would have been nice if you'd done me the courtesy of thinking that perhaps that was what I meant, rather than assuming that oh, she must be spouting dubious popularisations! as you appear to have done.) Sorry. Didn't mean to offend. But it's a point that bothers me about a lot of these everything theories. Yes, they only mean everything that is possible - but that could be a big hole in theory when you start to talk about really strange things. For example, holographic theory (combined with QM) limits the amount of information within a Hubble radius. It's not immediately obvious whether that prohibits some evolution of the quantum state or not, but it's plausible that it does. Sorry for overreacting. Obviously one has to go to the equations and see what they say. In the case of quantum mechanics I believe they say that any interaction has a continuum of outcomes, so we're immediately dealing with infinity. David Deutsch has been known to talk about Harry Potter universes in which magic appears to work thanks to quantum uncertainty, so it seems to me that if you take the multiverse seriously you have an incredible range of outcomes - none of which violate the various conservation principles, but some - an infinitesimal sliver - which appear to. So for example, it's possible that in tiny parts of the multiverse objects spontaneously materialise from quantum fluctuations - a teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars, say. This isn't something I feel very comfortable with, to be honest. Like Blaise Pascal's The eternal silence of these infinite spaces terrifies me, I feel - to say the least - frightened just contemplating the possibility that everything (including me) is replicated infinitely. It is such a mind-boggling idea that it seems to utterly dwarf anything I can possibly do, or even think. Everything has been thought already, an infinite number of times. Any fiction I may invent has happened somewhere (an infinite number of times). It's quite - daunting. Holographic theory indicates that the amount of entropy in a given volume is less than the entropy of a black hole of the same radius, which I believe is proportional to the surface area of that black hole. But wasn't that result contradicted by the recent discovery that there isn't a granularity to space larger than some minute fraction of the Planck size? Excuse me I have to go and lie down... -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11 November 2013 18:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/10/2013 5:59 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 November 2013 13:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/10/2013 3:54 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Sure, but the thing is that *you have to*, and asking such question at that stage is very likely... you can't be 10⁵ years old before having been 1 year old... it's simply nonsense. So you're falling back on the all-purpose 'everything' answer; whatever you observe is one of everything and that why everything is consistent with it - like why I'm not a Chinaman? There isn't any falling back here that I can see. It seems quite reasonable to say you have to pass through your birthdays in ascending order. I can't see why that is problematic / contraversial? Sure, but if I live infinitely long I will have almost all my experiences older than 75. So when I note that I'm not that old and that seems improbable, it's not an answer to say, Well, less than 75 is an age you must be sometime. Jason at least had an answer, although I don't think his answer leads to immortality either. I didn't say 75 is an age you must be sometime - I said 75 is an age you must be before you can be 76. You can only reach age N by traversing all lower ages first. You can't use a self-sampling argument to show that you shouldn't be your current age if you *have* to pass through that age before you can experience any greater ages. This is an answer. -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 09 Nov 2013, at 20:13, meekerdb wrote: On 11/9/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Tegmark thinks he will survive, if the gun works sufficiently well. if not he might degrade and eventually ... die. This makes no sense to me. It is annoying, but we can degrade a lot, yet we can't die (with just comp, or, ITSM, with just the quantum MWI). With comp, we can expect jump, and consciousness phase transition, though. Aside from not finding myself the oldest person on the planet, I see a problem with quantum immortality in that quantum mechanics is time- reverse invariant. So I should be 'past immortal' also. Can you imagine that immortality *is* in the past. And well, that was nice, but now you give some chances to mortality, just to compare. But as Mark Twain said, I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. If you recognize yourself in some other (human, or not) being(s) that is not clear at all. Bruno If we are what our brains do it is easy to see why we should live from past (low entropy) to future (higher entropy), be born and die. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
2013/11/11 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/10/2013 5:59 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 November 2013 13:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/10/2013 3:54 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Sure, but the thing is that *you have to*, and asking such question at that stage is very likely... you can't be 10⁵ years old before having been 1 year old... it's simply nonsense. So you're falling back on the all-purpose 'everything' answer; whatever you observe is one of everything and that why everything is consistent with it - like why I'm not a Chinaman? There isn't any falling back here that I can see. It seems quite reasonable to say you have to pass through your birthdays in ascending order. I can't see why that is problematic / contraversial? Sure, but if I live infinitely long I will have almost all my experiences older than 75. So when I note that I'm not that old and that seems improbable, The thing is as I said is that you have to be *first* 75 before being older... you're talking like every moment of your life was chosen randomly... they aren't (at least for me) before today, it was yesterday, not a random moment, and tomorrow will be tomorrow not a random moment in my life. Using your argument I should never have been a child. Quentin it's not an answer to say, Well, less than 75 is an age you must be sometime. Jason at least had an answer, although I don't think his answer leads to immortality either. Brent -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
Oops I meant OR a googol years, of course. -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11 November 2013 22:47, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/11/11 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/10/2013 5:59 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 November 2013 13:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/10/2013 3:54 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Sure, but the thing is that *you have to*, and asking such question at that stage is very likely... you can't be 10⁵ years old before having been 1 year old... it's simply nonsense. So you're falling back on the all-purpose 'everything' answer; whatever you observe is one of everything and that why everything is consistent with it - like why I'm not a Chinaman? There isn't any falling back here that I can see. It seems quite reasonable to say you have to pass through your birthdays in ascending order. I can't see why that is problematic / contraversial? Sure, but if I live infinitely long I will have almost all my experiences older than 75. So when I note that I'm not that old and that seems improbable, The thing is as I said is that you have to be *first* 75 before being older... you're talking like every moment of your life was chosen randomly... they aren't (at least for me) before today, it was yesterday, not a random moment, and tomorrow will be tomorrow not a random moment in my life. Using your argument I should never have been a child. I must admit I'm baffled that the normally sensible Mr Meeker finds it odd that one has to live through one's life consecutively, with or without quantum immortality. As stated, you can't use a Bayesian selection argument when the points you're chosen are constrained to occur sequentially, whether you're going to live to be 100, 1000, a million of a googol years, you still have to start at 1 and work your way up. -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 10 Nov 2013, at 19:31, meekerdb wrote: On 11/9/2013 11:37 PM, LizR wrote: On 10 November 2013 08:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/9/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Tegmark thinks he will survive, if the gun works sufficiently well. if not he might degrade and eventually ... die. This makes no sense to me. It is annoying, but we can degrade a lot, yet we can't die (with just comp, or, ITSM, with just the quantum MWI). With comp, we can expect jump, and consciousness phase transition, though. Aside from not finding myself the oldest person on the planet, I see a problem with quantum immortality in that quantum mechanics is time-reverse invariant. So I should be 'past immortal' also. But as Mark Twain said, I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. If we are what our brains do it is easy to see why we should live from past (low entropy) to future (higher entropy), be born and die. Leaving aside time reversibility (which I am myself rather hot on) for a moment, if you're quantum immortal you can only expect to eventually find yourself the oldest person. Give it time. You have to go through the bit beforehand beforehand... True, but finding yourself in the first 1/N of your life when N=inf is highly unlikely. Accepting some absolute self-sampling assumption (ASSA), which should not be assumed. This does not mean that you are not doing a point, but that you should recast it in the Relative SSA (RSSA). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/11/2013 12:11 AM, LizR wrote: On 11 November 2013 18:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/10/2013 5:59 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 November 2013 13:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/10/2013 3:54 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Sure, but the thing is that *you have to*, and asking such question at that stage is very likely... you can't be 10⁵ years old before having been 1 year old... it's simply nonsense. So you're falling back on the all-purpose 'everything' answer; whatever you observe is one of everything and that why everything is consistent with it - like why I'm not a Chinaman? There isn't any falling back here that I can see. It seems quite reasonable to say you have to pass through your birthdays in ascending order. I can't see why that is problematic / contraversial? Sure, but if I live infinitely long I will have almost all my experiences older than 75. So when I note that I'm not that old and that seems improbable, it's not an answer to say, Well, less than 75 is an age you must be sometime. Jason at least had an answer, although I don't think his answer leads to immortality either. I didn't say 75 is an age you must be sometime - I said 75 is an age you must be before you can be 76. You can only reach age N by traversing all lower ages first. You can't use a self-sampling argument to show that you shouldn't be your current age if you /have/ to pass through that age before you can experience any greater ages. I don't see the relevance of that. I had to pass through being 5 too. Suppose you are shown a machine and told that it is counting to infinity, i.e. indefinitely. You're asked to guess what number it's on. Would you be surprised if it were on 75? Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
2013/11/11 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/11/2013 12:11 AM, LizR wrote: On 11 November 2013 18:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/10/2013 5:59 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 November 2013 13:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/10/2013 3:54 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Sure, but the thing is that *you have to*, and asking such question at that stage is very likely... you can't be 10⁵ years old before having been 1 year old... it's simply nonsense. So you're falling back on the all-purpose 'everything' answer; whatever you observe is one of everything and that why everything is consistent with it - like why I'm not a Chinaman? There isn't any falling back here that I can see. It seems quite reasonable to say you have to pass through your birthdays in ascending order. I can't see why that is problematic / contraversial? Sure, but if I live infinitely long I will have almost all my experiences older than 75. So when I note that I'm not that old and that seems improbable, it's not an answer to say, Well, less than 75 is an age you must be sometime. Jason at least had an answer, although I don't think his answer leads to immortality either. I didn't say 75 is an age you must be sometime - I said 75 is an age you must be before you can be 76. You can only reach age N by traversing all lower ages first. You can't use a self-sampling argument to show that you shouldn't be your current age if you *have* to pass through that age before you can experience any greater ages. I don't see the relevance of that. I had to pass through being 5 too. Suppose you are shown a machine and told that it is counting to infinity, i.e. indefinitely. You're asked to guess what number it's on. Would you be surprised if it were on 75? It depends how fast it counts and when it was built... If the machine was built recently, and it added 1 every year... no I wouldn't. Quentin Brent -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/11/2013 1:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Sure, but if I live infinitely long I will have almost all my experiences older than 75. So when I note that I'm not that old and that seems improbable, The thing is as I said is that you have to be *first* 75 before being older... you're talking like every moment of your life was chosen randomly... they aren't (at least for me) before today, it was yesterday, not a random moment, and tomorrow will be tomorrow not a random moment in my life. Using your argument I should never have been a child. No, I'm just saying that sampling your life at random I'm less likely to find you being less than a year old than being less than a thousand years old. If my life is infinite, then it seems surprising that I find myself less than 75yrs old. I don't think this is a very strong argument, since it would apply no matter what age I found myself to be. But it seems curious that I find it to be true of everyone around me also. As though we all started more or less together. So we weren't past eternal either. Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
2013/11/11 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/11/2013 1:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Sure, but if I live infinitely long I will have almost all my experiences older than 75. So when I note that I'm not that old and that seems improbable, The thing is as I said is that you have to be *first* 75 before being older... you're talking like every moment of your life was chosen randomly... they aren't (at least for me) before today, it was yesterday, not a random moment, and tomorrow will be tomorrow not a random moment in my life. Using your argument I should never have been a child. No, I'm just saying that sampling your life at random Your life is not sampled at random, you have to be one year old before being 75; before being 1000 before being 10¹⁰. I'm less likely to find you You find you every day, according to you, every day should not happen, only being 10¹⁰⁰ is likely, it's just non-sense, your life is not random sampled, yesterday happen before today and before tomorrow. That doesn't make today less likely than tomorrow. being less than a year old than being less than a thousand years old. If my life is infinite, then it seems surprising that I find myself less than 75yrs old. It's not, because it is mandatory that in that long lifespan you find yourself 75. You cannot be very old before having been less old. Your life is sequential and that sequence cannot be avoided, even if you'll live an infinity of time. I don't think this is a very strong argument, since it would apply no matter what age I found myself to be. Exactly, it's just ASSA is non-sensical. But it seems curious that I find it to be true of everyone around me also. As though we all started more or less together. So we weren't past eternal either. I don't see how QI imples past eternality, it's not mandatory that infinity goes both way, things can have a start without an end. Quentin Brent -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/11/2013 10:42 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/11 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 11/11/2013 12:11 AM, LizR wrote: On 11 November 2013 18:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/10/2013 5:59 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 November 2013 13:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/10/2013 3:54 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Sure, but the thing is that *you have to*, and asking such question at that stage is very likely... you can't be 10⁵ years old before having been 1 year old... it's simply nonsense. So you're falling back on the all-purpose 'everything' answer; whatever you observe is one of everything and that why everything is consistent with it - like why I'm not a Chinaman? There isn't any falling back here that I can see. It seems quite reasonable to say you have to pass through your birthdays in ascending order. I can't see why that is problematic / contraversial? Sure, but if I live infinitely long I will have almost all my experiences older than 75. So when I note that I'm not that old and that seems improbable, it's not an answer to say, Well, less than 75 is an age you must be sometime. Jason at least had an answer, although I don't think his answer leads to immortality either. I didn't say 75 is an age you must be sometime - I said 75 is an age you must be before you can be 76. You can only reach age N by traversing all lower ages first. You can't use a self-sampling argument to show that you shouldn't be your current age if you /have/ to pass through that age before you can experience any greater ages. I don't see the relevance of that. I had to pass through being 5 too. Suppose you are shown a machine and told that it is counting to infinity, i.e. indefinitely. You're asked to guess what number it's on. Would you be surprised if it were on 75? It depends how fast it counts and when it was built... If the machine was built recently, and it added 1 every year... no I wouldn't. Suppose you were told it's been around forever. Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/11/2013 11:21 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: You find you every day, according to you, every day should not happen, only being 10¹⁰⁰ is likely, it's just non-sense, your life is not random sampled, yesterday happen before today and before tomorrow. That doesn't make today less likely than tomorrow. Sure, but it makes the interval (0,75) less likely than the interval (75, inf). But what's your analysis? Everybody I've ever heard of who was more than 40yrs older than me is dead. Do you not see that as evidence against my immortality? Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
2013/11/11 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/11/2013 11:21 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: You find you every day, according to you, every day should not happen, only being 10¹⁰⁰ is likely, it's just non-sense, your life is not random sampled, yesterday happen before today and before tomorrow. That doesn't make today less likely than tomorrow. Sure, but it makes the interval (0,75) less likely than the interval (75, inf). Only if your current moment was sampled from all the available you moments, but that's not the case... But what's your analysis? Everybody I've ever heard of who was more than 40yrs older than me is dead. Do you not see that as evidence against my immortality? I see this as evidence that if immortality is true it cannot be shared... by itself it does not rule it out. Quentin Brent -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 12 November 2013 09:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/11/2013 11:21 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: You find you every day, according to you, every day should not happen, only being 10¹⁰⁰ is likely, it's just non-sense, your life is not random sampled, yesterday happen before today and before tomorrow. That doesn't make today less likely than tomorrow. Sure, but it makes the interval (0,75) less likely than the interval (75, inf). Unless you're Billy Pilgrim from Slaughterhouse 5 this argument doesn't make sense, beause you are forced to sample your days in ascending order. -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/11/2013 3:39 PM, LizR wrote: On 12 November 2013 09:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/11/2013 11:21 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: You find you every day, according to you, every day should not happen, only being 10¹⁰⁰ is likely, it's just non-sense, your life is not random sampled, yesterday happen before today and before tomorrow. That doesn't make today less likely than tomorrow. Sure, but it makes the interval (0,75) less likely than the interval (75, inf). Unless you're Billy Pilgrim from Slaughterhouse 5 this argument doesn't make sense, beause you are forced to sample your days in ascending order. But what does that have to do with the probabilities? A sample is when I ask myself, how probable is it that my age is what it is today. I don't have to do this everyday. In fact I'm very unlikely to have done it before age 4. So I don't see why sequence is determinative. ISTM is only implies that tomorrow will be less likely than today (since I may not ask tomorrow; possibly because I'm dead). Suppose you're Benjamin Button. For him would it be OK to say it's surprising I'm only 75? Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 12 November 2013 13:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/11/2013 3:39 PM, LizR wrote: On 12 November 2013 09:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/11/2013 11:21 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: You find you every day, according to you, every day should not happen, only being 10¹⁰⁰ is likely, it's just non-sense, your life is not random sampled, yesterday happen before today and before tomorrow. That doesn't make today less likely than tomorrow. Sure, but it makes the interval (0,75) less likely than the interval (75, inf). Unless you're Billy Pilgrim from Slaughterhouse 5 this argument doesn't make sense, beause you are forced to sample your days in ascending order. But what does that have to do with the probabilities? A sample is when I ask myself, how probable is it that my age is what it is today. I don't have to do this everyday. In fact I'm very unlikely to have done it before age 4. So I don't see why sequence is determinative. ISTM is only implies that tomorrow will be less likely than today (since I may not ask tomorrow; possibly because I'm dead). Sequence is determinative because that's how the universe works. Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day, to the last syllable of recorded time. That's the second law doing its thing, and unless you've got very good reason to think otherwise, you shouldn't be surprised that it is. All we're saying is that you should be unsurprised to find yourself living your life in ascending order. You have to pass through your current age at some point, unless you die first, and you should expect to do so before you reach a greater age. If at your current age you ask how probable it is that you are your current age, the answer is 1. If you're quantum immortal then you will have the same probability every time you ask yourself that question into the indefinite future. You are always 100% likely to be your present age! Suppose you're Benjamin Button. For him would it be OK to say it's surprising I'm only 75? I don't know anything about Benjamin Button. -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
Actually, if you were Billy Pilgrim, you would know immediately you fell into the chronosyncinastic infundibulum (sp?) whether you were quantum immortal or not, because the chances would be infinitesimal of ending up in the first N years of your life, where N is *any* finite value. In fact Vonnegut got that wrong (in a way) because he said there were both pre-birth and post-death existences and if these lasted indefinitely, there would hardly be any chance that Billy would see one second of his life on Earth (or Tralfamadore (sp?)) ever again. Yet in the novel he was there almost all the (subjective) time, a bit like Dr Who always turning up on 20th century Earth despite having an entire universe and infinite time to wander in. -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/11/2013 4:29 PM, LizR wrote: On 12 November 2013 13:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/11/2013 3:39 PM, LizR wrote: On 12 November 2013 09:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/11/2013 11:21 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: You find you every day, according to you, every day should not happen, only being 10¹⁰⁰ is likely, it's just non-sense, your life is not random sampled, yesterday happen before today and before tomorrow. That doesn't make today less likely than tomorrow. Sure, but it makes the interval (0,75) less likely than the interval (75, inf). Unless you're Billy Pilgrim from Slaughterhouse 5 this argument doesn't make sense, beause you are forced to sample your days in ascending order. But what does that have to do with the probabilities? A sample is when I ask myself, how probable is it that my age is what it is today. I don't have to do this everyday. In fact I'm very unlikely to have done it before age 4. So I don't see why sequence is determinative. ISTM is only implies that tomorrow will be less likely than today (since I may not ask tomorrow; possibly because I'm dead). Sequence is determinative because that's how the universe works. Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day, to the last syllable of recorded time. That's the second law doing its thing, and unless you've got very good reason to think otherwise, you shouldn't be surprised that it is. All we're saying is that you should be unsurprised to find yourself living your life in ascending order. You have to pass through your current age at some point, unless you die first, and you should expect to do so before you reach a greater age. If at your current age you ask how probable it is that you are your current age, the answer is 1. If you're quantum immortal then you will have the same probability every time you ask yourself that question into the indefinite future. You are always 100% likely to be your present age! Suppose you're Benjamin Button. For him would it be OK to say it's surprising I'm only 75? I don't know anything about Benjamin Button. Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse. So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/11/2013 4:39 PM, LizR wrote: Actually, if you were Billy Pilgrim, you would know immediately you fell into the chronosyncinastic infundibulum (sp?) whether you were quantum immortal or not, because the chances would be infinitesimal of ending up in the first N years of your life, where N is /any/ finite value. In fact Vonnegut got that wrong (in a way) because he said there were both pre-birth and post-death existences and if these lasted indefinitely, there would hardly be any chance that Billy would see one second of his life on Earth (or Tralfamadore (sp?)) ever again. Yet in the novel he was there almost all the (subjective) time, a bit like Dr Who always turning up on 20th century Earth despite having an entire universe and infinite time to wander in. Do I have an infinite lifetime in which to ask, Why am I not older than 75? Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 12 November 2013 14:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/11/2013 4:39 PM, LizR wrote: Actually, if you were Billy Pilgrim, you would know immediately you fell into the chronosyncinastic infundibulum (sp?) whether you were quantum immortal or not, because the chances would be infinitesimal of ending up in the first N years of your life, where N is *any* finite value. In fact Vonnegut got that wrong (in a way) because he said there were both pre-birth and post-death existences and if these lasted indefinitely, there would hardly be any chance that Billy would see one second of his life on Earth (or Tralfamadore (sp?)) ever again. Yet in the novel he was there almost all the (subjective) time, a bit like Dr Who always turning up on 20th century Earth despite having an entire universe and infinite time to wander in. Do I have an infinite lifetime in which to ask, Why am I not older than 75? I don't know. Presumably you wouldn't ask yourself that once you were over 75. But the point is, you have to be less than 75 until you reach the age of 75. -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 12 November 2013 14:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/11/2013 4:29 PM, LizR wrote: On 12 November 2013 13:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/11/2013 3:39 PM, LizR wrote: On 12 November 2013 09:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/11/2013 11:21 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: You find you every day, according to you, every day should not happen, only being 10¹⁰⁰ is likely, it's just non-sense, your life is not random sampled, yesterday happen before today and before tomorrow. That doesn't make today less likely than tomorrow. Sure, but it makes the interval (0,75) less likely than the interval (75, inf). Unless you're Billy Pilgrim from Slaughterhouse 5 this argument doesn't make sense, beause you are forced to sample your days in ascending order. But what does that have to do with the probabilities? A sample is when I ask myself, how probable is it that my age is what it is today. I don't have to do this everyday. In fact I'm very unlikely to have done it before age 4. So I don't see why sequence is determinative. ISTM is only implies that tomorrow will be less likely than today (since I may not ask tomorrow; possibly because I'm dead). Sequence is determinative because that's how the universe works. Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day, to the last syllable of recorded time. That's the second law doing its thing, and unless you've got very good reason to think otherwise, you shouldn't be surprised that it is. All we're saying is that you should be unsurprised to find yourself living your life in ascending order. You have to pass through your current age at some point, unless you die first, and you should expect to do so before you reach a greater age. If at your current age you ask how probable it is that you are your current age, the answer is 1. If you're quantum immortal then you will have the same probability every time you ask yourself that question into the indefinite future. You are always 100% likely to be your present age! Suppose you're Benjamin Button. For him would it be OK to say it's surprising I'm only 75? I don't know anything about Benjamin Button. Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse. Oh, right, like the guy in Martin Amis' Time's Arrow (itself a rip off from An Age by Brian Aldiss). Presumably according to QTI he's at the end of an infinite future lifetime, or whatever? But since he's unphysical I guess we can say what we like about him. So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? My normal inference is that everyone dies. Apparently the QTI throws doubt on this by pointing out that we have only sampled an infinitesimal proportion of the available branches of the multiverse, and that in another infinitesimal portion there might be people who live forever (somehow). What is your inference from the fact that everywhere you've ever travelled has been on or near the surface of a congenial planet supplied with air, water and all the necessities of life? -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/11/2013 6:38 PM, LizR wrote: Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse. Oh, right, like the guy in Martin Amis' Time's Arrow (itself a rip off from An Age by Brian Aldiss). Presumably according to QTI he's at the end of an infinite future lifetime, or whatever? But since he's unphysical I guess we can say what we like about him. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was by F. Scott Fitzgerald (1922). So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? My normal inference is that everyone dies. Apparently the QTI throws doubt on this by pointing out that we have only sampled an infinitesimal proportion of the available branches of the multiverse, and that in another infinitesimal portion there might be people who live forever (somehow). But doesn't QTI imply that everybody is immortal, as Jason infers. Did you read Divided by Inifinity yet? What is your inference from the fact that everywhere you've ever travelled has been on or near the surface of a congenial planet supplied with air, water and all the necessities of life? That I'm the product of evolution on this planet. Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 12 November 2013 16:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/11/2013 6:38 PM, LizR wrote: Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse. Oh, right, like the guy in Martin Amis' Time's Arrow (itself a rip off from An Age by Brian Aldiss). Presumably according to QTI he's at the end of an infinite future lifetime, or whatever? But since he's unphysical I guess we can say what we like about him. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was by F. Scott Fitzgerald (1922). Oh well, he gets precedence, then. But in any case I don't see any particular relevance, probably that's my fault... So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? My normal inference is that everyone dies. Apparently the QTI throws doubt on this by pointing out that we have only sampled an infinitesimal proportion of the available branches of the multiverse, and that in another infinitesimal portion there might be people who live forever (somehow). But doesn't QTI imply that everybody is immortal, as Jason infers. Did you read Divided by Inifinity yet? Yes it does, but only in infinitesimal slivers of the multiverse, which is what I was trying to say in my roundabout way. No I skimmed it, but I hope / think I get the point. Is there anything else I should be taking from it apart from this is what quantum immortality might look like, assuming a nearby gamma ray burst and so on ? What is your inference from the fact that everywhere you've ever travelled has been on or near the surface of a congenial planet supplied with air, water and all the necessities of life? That I'm the product of evolution on this planet. Right, you're here in an extremely unlikely situation if you take random samples from the universe. I was trying to draw a parallel here, if I can just remember what it was... -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/11/2013 7:35 PM, LizR wrote: On 12 November 2013 16:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/11/2013 6:38 PM, LizR wrote: Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse. Oh, right, like the guy in Martin Amis' Time's Arrow (itself a rip off from An Age by Brian Aldiss). Presumably according to QTI he's at the end of an infinite future lifetime, or whatever? But since he's unphysical I guess we can say what we like about him. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was by F. Scott Fitzgerald (1922). Oh well, he gets precedence, then. But in any case I don't see any particular relevance, probably that's my fault... So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? My normal inference is that everyone dies. Apparently the QTI throws doubt on this by pointing out that we have only sampled an infinitesimal proportion of the available branches of the multiverse, and that in another infinitesimal portion there might be people who live forever (somehow). But doesn't QTI imply that everybody is immortal, as Jason infers. Did you read Divided by Inifinity yet? Yes it does, but only in infinitesimal slivers of the multiverse, which is what I was trying to say in my roundabout way. No I skimmed it, but I hope / think I get the point. Is there anything else I should be taking from it apart from this is what quantum immortality might look like, assuming a nearby gamma ray burst and so on ? What is your inference from the fact that everywhere you've ever travelled has been on or near the surface of a congenial planet supplied with air, water and all the necessities of life? That I'm the product of evolution on this planet. Right, you're here in an extremely unlikely situation if you take random samples from the universe. I was trying to draw a parallel here, if I can just remember what it was... That you can't infer much from I'm X except that it's possible to be X. To make probabilistic inferences you either need a lot of samples (other people) or you need somebody to hand you a likelihood function. I think the problem with QTI is that QM doesn't guarantee another experience of any quality. It may guarantee that something happens, but the experience may the experience of being a bunch of loosely related molecules. Craig likes to talk about 'sense' which when pressed it attributes to everything. Experience may be like that; everything has 'experience', it's just not human experience and when you stop having human experience you're dead. Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:37 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 November 2013 08:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/9/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Tegmark thinks he will survive, if the gun works sufficiently well. if not he might degrade and eventually ... die. This makes no sense to me. It is annoying, but we can degrade a lot, yet we can't die (with just comp, or, ITSM, with just the quantum MWI). With comp, we can expect jump, and consciousness phase transition, though. Aside from not finding myself the oldest person on the planet, I see a problem with quantum immortality in that quantum mechanics is time-reverse invariant. So I should be 'past immortal' also. But as Mark Twain said, I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. If we are what our brains do it is easy to see why we should live from past (low entropy) to future (higher entropy), be born and die. Leaving aside time reversibility (which I am myself rather hot on) for a moment, if you're quantum immortal you can only expect to *eventually*find yourself the oldest person. Give it time. You have to go through the bit beforehand beforehand... Let's say the average life expectancy is a not infinite, but some very large number, like a google plex years. If you were to draw a ball at random from an urn that had a googleplex balls in it, each with its unique number inscribed on it, would you be surprised if the number was less than 100? That is found to be less than 100 is surprising to a lot of people who consider quantum immortality, but it shouldn't be for a few reasons. One's statistical measure decreases over time. This is easiest to see in the quantum suicide experiment, where each pull of the trigger cuts one's measure in half. Imagine someone who did this every day of their life, their measure over time would be an infinite serious with a finite (not infinite) sum. Just like 3.33 is a sum of an infinite number of numbers 3 + 0.3 + 0.003 ... nonetheless, it is still less than 4. If one's measure diminishes geometrically as they live to ever increasingly absurd lifetimes 200 years, 300 years, 400 years, etc., then the same effect is the result, and we should not be surprised at drawing a number less than 100. The other reason we should not be surprised is that we have no idea how old we really are. Let's say heaven is real and all people live eternally. Then probabilistically this moment you are experiencing now is infinitely more likely to be a moment of perfect recall of this moment of life on earth (from heaven) rather than your life as the first time you lived it. In other words, if heaven exists, then you are almost surely already in it. Your age is some infinite number, and you have recalled this moment an infinite number of times. Quantum immortality guarantees you will always have a next experience, but it does not guarantee what memories you will have access to in those next experiences. 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 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/9/2013 11:37 PM, LizR wrote: On 10 November 2013 08:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/9/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Tegmark thinks he will survive, if the gun works sufficiently well. if not he might degrade and eventually ... die. This makes no sense to me. It is annoying, but we can degrade a lot, yet we can't die (with just comp, or, ITSM, with just the quantum MWI). With comp, we can expect jump, and consciousness phase transition, though. Aside from not finding myself the oldest person on the planet, I see a problem with quantum immortality in that quantum mechanics is time-reverse invariant. So I should be 'past immortal' also. But as Mark Twain said, I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. If we are what our brains do it is easy to see why we should live from past (low entropy) to future (higher entropy), be born and die. Leaving aside time reversibility (which I am myself rather hot on) for a moment, if you're quantum immortal you can only expect to /eventually/ find yourself the oldest person. Give it time. You have to go through the bit beforehand beforehand... True, but finding yourself in the first 1/N of your life when N=inf is highly unlikely. Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/10/2013 9:25 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:37 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 November 2013 08:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/9/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Tegmark thinks he will survive, if the gun works sufficiently well. if not he might degrade and eventually ... die. This makes no sense to me. It is annoying, but we can degrade a lot, yet we can't die (with just comp, or, ITSM, with just the quantum MWI). With comp, we can expect jump, and consciousness phase transition, though. Aside from not finding myself the oldest person on the planet, I see a problem with quantum immortality in that quantum mechanics is time-reverse invariant. So I should be 'past immortal' also. But as Mark Twain said, I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. If we are what our brains do it is easy to see why we should live from past (low entropy) to future (higher entropy), be born and die. Leaving aside time reversibility (which I am myself rather hot on) for a moment, if you're quantum immortal you can only expect to /eventually/ find yourself the oldest person. Give it time. You have to go through the bit beforehand beforehand... Let's say the average life expectancy is a not infinite, but some very large number, like a google plex years. If you were to draw a ball at random from an urn that had a googleplex balls in it, each with its unique number inscribed on it, would you be surprised if the number was less than 100? That is found to be less than 100 is surprising to a lot of people who consider quantum immortality, but it shouldn't be for a few reasons. One's statistical measure decreases over time. This is easiest to see in the quantum suicide experiment, where each pull of the trigger cuts one's measure in half. Imagine someone who did this every day of their life, their measure over time would be an infinite serious with a finite (not infinite) sum. Just like 3.33 is a sum of an infinite number of numbers 3 + 0.3 + 0.003 ... nonetheless, it is still less than 4. If one's measure diminishes geometrically as they live to ever increasingly absurd lifetimes 200 years, 300 years, 400 years, etc., then the same effect is the result, and we should not be surprised at drawing a number less than 100. So when your measure becomes less than one bit or too small to support your experience - you're dead. The other reason we should not be surprised is that we have no idea how old we really are. Let's say heaven is real and all people live eternally. Then probabilistically this moment you are experiencing now is infinitely more likely to be a moment of perfect recall of this moment of life on earth (from heaven) rather than your life as the first time you lived it. In other words, if heaven exists, then you are almost surely already in it. Your age is some infinite number, and you have recalled this moment an infinite number of times. Nietzsche's eternal return. But is it heaven, or is it hell? Brent Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls are separate and self-existing entities. Their heart still clings to Self. They are anxious about heaven and they seek the pleasure of Self in heaven. Thus they cannot see the bliss of righteousness of the immortality of truth.' Selfish ideas appear in man's mind due to his conception of Self and craving for existence. --- Siddhartha Gautama -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
2013/11/10 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/9/2013 11:37 PM, LizR wrote: On 10 November 2013 08:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/9/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Tegmark thinks he will survive, if the gun works sufficiently well. if not he might degrade and eventually ... die. This makes no sense to me. It is annoying, but we can degrade a lot, yet we can't die (with just comp, or, ITSM, with just the quantum MWI). With comp, we can expect jump, and consciousness phase transition, though. Aside from not finding myself the oldest person on the planet, I see a problem with quantum immortality in that quantum mechanics is time-reverse invariant. So I should be 'past immortal' also. But as Mark Twain said, I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. If we are what our brains do it is easy to see why we should live from past (low entropy) to future (higher entropy), be born and die. Leaving aside time reversibility (which I am myself rather hot on) for a moment, if you're quantum immortal you can only expect to *eventually*find yourself the oldest person. Give it time. You have to go through the bit beforehand beforehand... True, but finding yourself in the first 1/N of your life when N=inf is highly unlikely. Sure, but the thing is that *you have to*, and asking such question at that stage is very likely... you can't be 10⁵ years old before having been 1 year old... it's simply nonsense. Quentin Brent -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/10/2013 3:54 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/10 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 11/9/2013 11:37 PM, LizR wrote: On 10 November 2013 08:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/9/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Tegmark thinks he will survive, if the gun works sufficiently well. if not he might degrade and eventually ... die. This makes no sense to me. It is annoying, but we can degrade a lot, yet we can't die (with just comp, or, ITSM, with just the quantum MWI). With comp, we can expect jump, and consciousness phase transition, though. Aside from not finding myself the oldest person on the planet, I see a problem with quantum immortality in that quantum mechanics is time-reverse invariant. So I should be 'past immortal' also. But as Mark Twain said, I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. If we are what our brains do it is easy to see why we should live from past (low entropy) to future (higher entropy), be born and die. Leaving aside time reversibility (which I am myself rather hot on) for a moment, if you're quantum immortal you can only expect to /eventually/ find yourself the oldest person. Give it time. You have to go through the bit beforehand beforehand... True, but finding yourself in the first 1/N of your life when N=inf is highly unlikely. Sure, but the thing is that *you have to*, and asking such question at that stage is very likely... you can't be 10⁵ years old before having been 1 year old... it's simply nonsense. So you're falling back on the all-purpose 'everything' answer; whatever you observe is one of everything and that why everything is consistent with it - like why I'm not a Chinaman? Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11 November 2013 13:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/10/2013 3:54 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Sure, but the thing is that *you have to*, and asking such question at that stage is very likely... you can't be 10⁵ years old before having been 1 year old... it's simply nonsense. So you're falling back on the all-purpose 'everything' answer; whatever you observe is one of everything and that why everything is consistent with it - like why I'm not a Chinaman? There isn't any falling back here that I can see. It seems quite reasonable to say you have to pass through your birthdays in ascending order. I can't see why that is problematic / contraversial? -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:48 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/10/2013 9:25 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:37 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 November 2013 08:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/9/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Tegmark thinks he will survive, if the gun works sufficiently well. if not he might degrade and eventually ... die. This makes no sense to me. It is annoying, but we can degrade a lot, yet we can't die (with just comp, or, ITSM, with just the quantum MWI). With comp, we can expect jump, and consciousness phase transition, though. Aside from not finding myself the oldest person on the planet, I see a problem with quantum immortality in that quantum mechanics is time-reverse invariant. So I should be 'past immortal' also. But as Mark Twain said, I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. If we are what our brains do it is easy to see why we should live from past (low entropy) to future (higher entropy), be born and die. Leaving aside time reversibility (which I am myself rather hot on) for a moment, if you're quantum immortal you can only expect to *eventually* find yourself the oldest person. Give it time. You have to go through the bit beforehand beforehand... Let's say the average life expectancy is a not infinite, but some very large number, like a google plex years. If you were to draw a ball at random from an urn that had a googleplex balls in it, each with its unique number inscribed on it, would you be surprised if the number was less than 100? That is found to be less than 100 is surprising to a lot of people who consider quantum immortality, but it shouldn't be for a few reasons. One's statistical measure decreases over time. This is easiest to see in the quantum suicide experiment, where each pull of the trigger cuts one's measure in half. Imagine someone who did this every day of their life, their measure over time would be an infinite serious with a finite (not infinite) sum. Just like 3.33 is a sum of an infinite number of numbers 3 + 0.3 + 0.003 ... nonetheless, it is still less than 4. If one's measure diminishes geometrically as they live to ever increasingly absurd lifetimes 200 years, 300 years, 400 years, etc., then the same effect is the result, and we should not be surprised at drawing a number less than 100. So when your measure becomes less than one bit or too small to support your experience - you're dead. When it becomes small enough, then more probable extensions become more likely. I don't know if it can ever become zero, that would require some experience which by its definition cannot have a following experience. Even witnessing an atom bomb going off 1000 feet from you does not necessarily count, because even that experience could continue as seen from someone awaking from what turned out to be a simulation. The other reason we should not be surprised is that we have no idea how old we really are. Let's say heaven is real and all people live eternally. Then probabilistically this moment you are experiencing now is infinitely more likely to be a moment of perfect recall of this moment of life on earth (from heaven) rather than your life as the first time you lived it. In other words, if heaven exists, then you are almost surely already in it. Your age is some infinite number, and you have recalled this moment an infinite number of times. Nietzsche's eternal return. Although not quite, for there may still be novel experience in such an eternal life besides those that involve recall of the first life. But then, who is to say that this is the first or only life of that eternal being? But is it heaven, or is it hell? Good question. Jason Brent Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls are separate and self-existing entities. Their heart still clings to Self. They are anxious about heaven and they seek the pleasure of Self in heaven. Thus they cannot see the bliss of righteousness of the immortality of truth.' Selfish ideas appear in man's mind due to his conception of Self and craving for existence. --- Siddhartha Gautama -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/10/2013 5:59 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 November 2013 13:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/10/2013 3:54 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Sure, but the thing is that *you have to*, and asking such question at that stage is very likely... you can't be 10⁵ years old before having been 1 year old... it's simply nonsense. So you're falling back on the all-purpose 'everything' answer; whatever you observe is one of everything and that why everything is consistent with it - like why I'm not a Chinaman? There isn't any falling back here that I can see. It seems quite reasonable to say you have to pass through your birthdays in ascending order. I can't see why that is problematic / contraversial? Sure, but if I live infinitely long I will have almost all my experiences older than 75. So when I note that I'm not that old and that seems improbable, it's not an answer to say, Well, less than 75 is an age you must be sometime. Jason at least had an answer, although I don't think his answer leads to immortality either. Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 08 Nov 2013, at 20:10, Richard Ruquist wrote: The 10^120 bits for the holographic visible universe is based on the Planck Scale and is the number of Planck Areas on its surface. Penrose estimates that it will maximize at 10^122 in the future. Yes, but with comp, the visible universe is a tiny part of reality. The tip of the iceberg, as we say. Bruno Richard On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Nov 2013, at 06:51, LizR wrote: On 7 November 2013 23:43, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Nov 2013, at 04:40, Richard Ruquist wrote: I have no idea what the information capacity of a MWI multiverse is. 0, in Gods' eye. Surely the information capacity of the multiverse is equivalent to the information needed to specify the laws of physics? It is the information you need to define addition and multiplication. OK, it is a bit more than 0. I would guess the information capacity of all possible multiverses would either be zero or perhaps whatever information is stored in maths (although I guess that could be considered as zero). It has to be a little above zero, as you cannot specify math from no axioms at all. Infinity, from inside, and our partial relative position. Surely the information capacity as seen from our particular position isn't infinite, although it is very large? I've heard the figure 10^120 bits mentioned for the visible universe, which is - I assume - all we currently have even potentially available. But the visible universe is like a dust, compared to the non visible realities ... Also, 10^120 is a very rough estimate, and makes no sense if there are continuous observable. Bruno -- 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- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 08 Nov 2013, at 22:16, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Nov 2013, at 00:51, LizR wrote: I was thinking specifically of Max Tegmark's MUH. He considers minds to be subsystems of the maths - he doesn't say anything about computations existing in arithmetic. So I think he probably hasn't developed that aspect of the theory to the extent that you have, and may not realise the full implications. Have you had any communication with him? It could be interesting to combine your ideas. We have discussed on this list a long time ago. I was astonished that he does not believe in the quantum immortality, Interesting. And he is one who is well known for popularizing the idea of proving MWI by putting a quantum gun to one's head. How did he justify his disbelief in quantum immortality while at the same time believe in MWI? What would he think the experimenter will experience when he gets in the box with Schrodinger's cat? Tegmark thinks he will survive, if the gun works sufficiently well. if not he might degrade and eventually ... die. This makes no sense to me. It is annoying, but we can degrade a lot, yet we can't die (with just comp, or, ITSM, with just the quantum MWI). With comp, we can expect jump, and consciousness phase transition, though. Bruno and is not aware of comp (and mathematical logic). There is a big gap between physicists and logicians. The book by Pale Yourgrau on Einstein and Gödel illustrates this very well. The book by Penrose, which I find very courageous, but erroneous on the Gödel/mind/ machine relation, has considerably augment that gap. Physicists tends to run away when hearing the word Gödel ... many logicians runs away when they heard the word reality, or even worst physical reality. Bruno On 7 November 2013 12:39, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Nov 2013, at 22:17, LizR wrote: If the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis is correct, spacetime (and everything else) is an emergent feature of maths, which makes it a secondary feature of a nonphysical, Platonic object, though not mind. And if we are digitalizable machine, then the Mathematical Universe hypothesis is correct for the ontology, and we need only elementary arithmetic, and physics is a secondary feature, but it *is* a mind fetaure, with the mind emerging from the computations (existing by elementary arithmetic). By allowing an observer to be a non-machine *of some kind*, you can need richer mathematical theologies/physics, but that's not entirely clear to me. The mind itself cannot be entirely mathematical. At least, nor from inside, where we are living (now), assuming we are machine. So if we consider both the 3p and the 1p, the mathematical hypothesis is only 99,9998% correct. The tail of the cow can't go through the window! Bruno On 7 November 2013 07:01, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Roger, Perhaps it is because you are just plain wrong. Richard On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind I am shocked to find that so far I have not found a scientist anywhere that understands that spacetime, being just lawful behavior (laws) is platonic (is mind). Perhaps they consider it to be quantum gravity. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- 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. -- 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 09 Nov 2013, at 00:22, Jason Resch wrote: Liz, That is very interesting. Do you remember anything about this interview (where it was, who was interviewing him, etc.)? One answer is in this very list. I think that it was in an early (interesting) thread Amoeba Croaks. I don't know if the archive can give that back. May be Liz will provide another answer. Bruno Thanks, Jason On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 5:07 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: In an interview Max Tegmark said that he expected to have a truncated form of QI - he'd survive the quantum suicide experiment, but his brain would still deteriorate in any case until he eventually fades out (like when an amoeba croaks were his exact words, iirc) I think he also mentioned that this might segue into being reborn, so a form of reincarnation - but it's a while since I read it. On 9 November 2013 10:16, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Nov 2013, at 00:51, LizR wrote: I was thinking specifically of Max Tegmark's MUH. He considers minds to be subsystems of the maths - he doesn't say anything about computations existing in arithmetic. So I think he probably hasn't developed that aspect of the theory to the extent that you have, and may not realise the full implications. Have you had any communication with him? It could be interesting to combine your ideas. We have discussed on this list a long time ago. I was astonished that he does not believe in the quantum immortality, Interesting. And he is one who is well known for popularizing the idea of proving MWI by putting a quantum gun to one's head. How did he justify his disbelief in quantum immortality while at the same time believe in MWI? What would he think the experimenter will experience when he gets in the box with Schrodinger's cat? -- 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/9/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Tegmark thinks he will survive, if the gun works sufficiently well. if not he might degrade and eventually ... die. This makes no sense to me. It is annoying, but we can degrade a lot, yet we can't die (with just comp, or, ITSM, with just the quantum MWI). With comp, we can expect jump, and consciousness phase transition, though. Aside from not finding myself the oldest person on the planet, I see a problem with quantum immortality in that quantum mechanics is time-reverse invariant. So I should be 'past immortal' also. But as Mark Twain said, I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. If we are what our brains do it is easy to see why we should live from past (low entropy) to future (higher entropy), be born and die. Brent -- 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.
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 10 November 2013 08:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/9/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Tegmark thinks he will survive, if the gun works sufficiently well. if not he might degrade and eventually ... die. This makes no sense to me. It is annoying, but we can degrade a lot, yet we can't die (with just comp, or, ITSM, with just the quantum MWI). With comp, we can expect jump, and consciousness phase transition, though. Aside from not finding myself the oldest person on the planet, I see a problem with quantum immortality in that quantum mechanics is time-reverse invariant. So I should be 'past immortal' also. But as Mark Twain said, I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. If we are what our brains do it is easy to see why we should live from past (low entropy) to future (higher entropy), be born and die. Leaving aside time reversibility (which I am myself rather hot on) for a moment, if you're quantum immortal you can only expect to *eventually* find yourself the oldest person. Give it time. You have to go through the bit beforehand beforehand... -- 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.