Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I was thinking of people who accept some ensemble theory such as MWI, but don't believe in QTI. I must admit, I find it difficult to understand how even a dualist might justify (a) as being correct. Would anyone care to help? What do you think of my argument here? http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg04692.html
Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
Le Samedi 26 Novembre 2005 18:47, Jesse Mazer a écrit : Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I was thinking of people who accept some ensemble theory such as MWI, but don't believe in QTI. I must admit, I find it difficult to understand how even a dualist might justify (a) as being correct. Would anyone care to help? What would be the meaning to accept solution a ? Are we only sentient entities for a small(art) moment ? It sounds stupid to only be sentient for a moment... just because a moment has no meaning for entities like us. Like I like to repeat, what could it means to not be self aware... ? Could we as first person perspective be aware of not being aware ? It sounds non sense. While I agree it is quite of topic.. this is something that I got lot of interest into. Why are we looking for a consistent meaning of our own life ? Quentin
RE: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
Saibal wrote: The answer must be a) because (and here I disagree with Jesse), all that exists is an ensemble of isolated observer moments. The future, the past, alternative histories, etc. they all exist in a symmetrical way. It don't see how some states can be more ''real'' than other states. Of course, the universe we experience seems to be real to us while alternative universes, or past or future states of this universe are not being experienced by us. So, you must think of yourself at any time as being randomly sampled from the set of all possible observer moments. delurk I'm not sure how this works. Suppose I consider my state now at time N as a random sample of all observer moments. Now, after having typed this sentence, I consider my state at time N + 4 seconds. Is this also a random sample on all observer moments? I can do the same at now N+10, and so-on. It seems very unlikely that 3 random samples would coincide so closely. So in what sense are these states randomly sampled? Jonathan Colvin
Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Stathis Papaioannou writes: If on the basis of a coin toss the world splits, and in one branch I am instantaneously killed while in the other I continue living, there are several possible ways this might be interpreted from the 1st person viewpoint: (a) Pr(I live) = Pr(I die) = 0.5 (b) Pr(I live) = 1, Pr(I die) = 0 (c) Pr(I live) = 0, Pr(I die) = 1 Your example underscores the need for interpreting Pr as a relative concept ( this is my favorite point of view): c) is A observing A. It is seen through the first person A who is killed in one branch and live in another branch. This is called the first person on this list. a) is B observing A: It is seen through a first person B who witnesses the event hapenning to A but lives in both branches. His point of view is called the third person on this list: b) is C observing A. It is seen through a first person C who experiences the complement events of A. He lives when A dies and vice versa. The probability that he will see A live is 0. We do not have a name for this point of view on this list but I could suggest the complement first person. Thus all answers are correct depending on your relative point of view. George
Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
Please disregard previous post. The b and c cases were inverted. Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Stathis Papaioannou writes: If on the basis of a coin toss the world splits, and in one branch I am instantaneously killed while in the other I continue living, there are several possible ways this might be interpreted from the 1st person viewpoint: (a) Pr(I live) = Pr(I die) = 0.5 (b) Pr(I live) = 1, Pr(I die) = 0 (c) Pr(I live) = 0, Pr(I die) = 1 Your example underscores the need for interpreting Pr as a relative concept ( this is my favorite point of view): b) is A observing A. It is seen through the first person A who is killed in one branch and live in another branch. This is called the first person on this list. a) is B observing A: It is seen through a first person B who witnesses the event hapenning to A but lives in both branches. His point of view is called the third person on this list: c) is C observing A. It is seen through a first person C who experiences the complement events of A. He lives when A dies and vice versa. The probability that he will see A live is 0. We do not have a name for this point of view on this list but I could suggest the complement first person. Thus all answers are correct depending on your relative point of view. George
