Re: continuity - cloning
Jack, As Stathis and Quentin wrote, we have approached the core of the disagreement. You (Jack) seem to have a very quaint idea of personal identity - some kind of essentialism. Strange that you hold that theory and call talk of 1st person/3rd person distinction sloganeering. It seems, perhaps, that the sloganeers have a much more scientific concept of personal identity than you do? Cheers, Günther Jack Mallah wrote: --- On Wed, 2/11/09, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: You agree that if one version of me goes to bed tonight and one version of me wakes up tomorrow, then I should expect to wake up tomorrow. But if extra versions of me are manufactured and run today, then switched off when I go to sleep, then you are saying that I might not wake up tomorrow. You won't know this evening if you are one of the extra versions or the original. So yes, in that situation, you will probably not be around tomorrow. Only the original will. The extra copies of me have somehow sapped my life strength. Not at all. I guess that is a joke? Creating more copies, then getting rid of the same number, does not result in a net decrease in measure. That is why the movie The Prestige bears no resemblance whatsoever to QS despite rumors to the contrary. If you create extra copies and leave them alive, there is a net increase in measure. That is equivalent to new people being born even if they have your memories. This once happenned to Will Riker on Star Trek: TNG. -- Günther Greindl Department of Philosophy of Science University of Vienna guenther.grei...@univie.ac.at Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/ Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: ASSA vs. RSSA and the no cul-de-sac conjecture was (AB continuity)
2009/2/12 Johnathan Corgan jcor...@aeinet.com: It is an open question (to me at least) whether there are any observer moments without successors, i.e., where the amplitude of the SW goes to zero. If it does not, then this implies that the always branching tree of observer moments has no leaf nodes--rather, it becomes an ever finer filigree of lines, but any particular point will always have a downstream set of forks. This is the essence of the no cul-de-sac conjecture, and the crux of the quantum theory of immortality. Does MWI suggest that everything that can occur does occur? The following article suggests not: http://scienceblogs.com/pontiff/2008/11/everything_and_nothing.php I guess it is still possible that the no cul-de-sac conjecture is correct even though some ways of avoiding death are impossible. -- Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: A summary I just wrote for my blog
Kim,
I presume you have clear ideas about what 'life' may be (to live?) and the
a-temporal distinction of 'ever'. (It is definitely not = 'a long long
time').
I paraphrase you wisdom as:
time in our opinion goes as long as we live(?) so 'after that' is not
identified.
My reasons for not including afterlife or reincarnation (or even the other
sci-fi concepts on this list (replicas, teleportation etc.) is my view of
the 'existence' (also a hard word): the 'world' (use whatever is you beef:
nature, totality, even existence) is a complexity of everything in
relational unity. We observe parts of it (according to our capabilities,
we can't encompass all) and select 'models' for our views. In our
understanding (limited as it is) we identify our relation to such models
('our' is similarly a figment to be explained - person, self, you name it)
and realize (partial) complexities constituting our world, our life,
ourselves. When relations change by interference from (maybe even out of
model) participants, we talk about a process. Maybe in form of a 'zipp'.
When a complexity reorganizes in a major(?) process it vanishes (=death) and
there is no further continuation of the complexity that was reorganized.
The complexity us is more than physically describable (Aris-total) and by
major reorganization all is gone as identifiable as pertinent to the
vanished - reorganized - complexity (us). (3rd person memories ABOUT are not
to be mistaken for the complexity's 1st person assignable processes.)
Forever means it just stopped dead. It stepped out from the time concept.
Time is a coordinating factor how our universe 'orders' its happenings and
space is the other one.
All this pertains to my NARRATIVE (not theory!) to make our world a bit
easier to handle logically (commonsensically) in our mind(?).
If you like it, use it, if not, delete.
So a less verbose reflection to your pretty laconic maxim:
there is one instance for the entire complexity 'us' to function (processes)
- whith the major instrumental components in unchanged relationships. Once
such relationships are changed the process-complexity is over. Time
space) are our coordinating figments to make relational changes palatable
for our limited understanding.
JohnM
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 6:04 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
We only live once, but we live forever
There is no afterlife - only life eternal
Kim Jones
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: adult vs. child
On 11 Feb 2009, at 20:47, Brent Meeker wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Feb 2009, at 00:38, Günther Greindl wrote: I'm with Mike and Brent. Bruno, giving A1 and A2 mirrors which would show different stuff violates Stathis' assumption of running the _same_ computation - you can't go out of the system. See my answer to Brent. Once A1 looks at itself in the mirror (and thus A2 too, given the protocol). A1 sees MA1 and A2 sees MA2, and the computation differs. If A1 sees MA1 and A2 sees MA2 and they see something different, i.e. MA1 and MA2 are distinguishable, then you've violated the hypothesis that the computations are identical. Right? I did change the protocol to make my point, which concerns only the probability of finding myself by MA1 or by MA2, but not both. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Dreams and measure
On 11 Feb 2009, at 18:30, Saibal Mitra wrote: Welcome back Jack Mallah! I have a different argument against QTI. I had a nice dream last night, but unfortunately it suddenly ended. Now, this is empirical evidence against QTI because, according to the QTI, the life expectancy of the version of me simulated in that dream should have been be infinite. The notion of ending makes sense only relatively to something ending latter or not ending. With most definition of first person (including both UDA and AUDA definitions) first person ending just makes no sense. Topologically, life is an open set. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Dreams and measure
On 11 Feb 2009, at 21:51, Brent Meeker wrote: Saibal Mitra wrote: Welcome back Jack Mallah! I have a different argument against QTI. I had a nice dream last night, but unfortunately it suddenly ended. Now, this is empirical evidence against QTI because, according to the QTI, the life expectancy of the version of me simulated in that dream should have been be infinite. Of course maybe in some other branch of the multiverse your dream is continuing. That's what makes everything-theories difficult to test. But you raise an interesting point. Everything-theories that suppose consciousness is constituted by the closest continuations need to solve the white rabbit problem. But that solution, whatever it is, would equally apply in dreams. So why don't dreams have the same physics as waking life? Ah! That is a good question. It is equivalent to the first person white rabbit problem (which was the point of the original white rabbit problem in conscience and mécanisme. The answer is that dreams are really stabilized by their relative apparition with respect to deep computations with high measure. For such relativity we need a mechanist notion of first person PLURAL, and then I hope the arithmetical hypostases will confirmed this the working of such notion. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: adult vs. child
On 11 Feb 2009, at 22:19, Brent Meeker wrote: This idea seems inconsistent with MWI. In QM the split is uncaused so it's hard to see why its influence extends into the past and increases the measure of computations that were identical before the split. I got the inspiration from the MWI, and even from David Deutsch convincing point that conceptually differentiation-talk is less wrong than bifurcation-talk. But is is not simply, in QM, a consequence of the linearity of the tensor product?, i.e. the fact that the state A*(B+C) is equivalent with (A*C)+(A*C), where A, B, C represents kets and * represents the tensor product. Of course the price to pay, as Everett first noticed, is that the states become a relative notion, and the probabilities too, making RSSA obligatory in QM. With comp it is more subtle (but then Everett uses comp and missed or abstracted himself from this subtlety). Of course we still lack a definite criteria of identity for computation. But we can already derive what can count as different computations if we want those measure question making sense. As I understand it your theory of personal identity depends on computations going through a particular state. Intuitively this implies a state at a particular moment, but a Y=II representation implies that we are taking into account not just the present state but some period of history - which would correspond with the usual idea of a person - something with a history, not just a state. Absolutely so. It is the Darwinistic aspect of comp. A species with a lot of offsprings makes higher the time life of old gene. Perhaps thats why it is said we should grow and multiply :) Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Seventh Step 1 (Numbers and Notations)
On 11 Feb 2009, at 23:46, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno, just lightening up a bit...you know that I graduated
already from 2nd yr grade school so I have an open mind criticizing
high science.
Not that if I see 'I' that means 1, but if I see 'III' that does
not mean 3 to me, it means 111. You have to teach first what those
funny 'figures' (3,7,etc.) mean.
I don't have to do that. If you follow the thread, you will even
understand why I cannot do that. The existence and nature of numbers
as well as our understanding of it will remain a mystery. But assuming
comp (and thus the numbers), we can understand why this is a necessary
mystery. It is part of the unbridgeable gap which has to remain if we
want to remain bot scientist and consistent.
If you teach: III and III mean 3 and 7, then you said
nothing, just named them.
That was my point. To talk on notation. I just hope people understand
enough the number so that if I ask them to give me 3 euros, they will
not give me two or four.
Later we will axiomatize the theory of numbers. But I prefer to wait
to be sure people understand the notion of number before axiomatizing.
If I do the axiomatization too early, some people will believe I am
rigorously defining the numbers, but this is a grave error. I will
axiomatize the number to reason about them and to interview machines
about the numbers.
Numbers are as mysterius as consciousness and time. That is why
mathematicians does not even try. But wait for the next thread, I will
give a definition of numbers (which sometimes makes some mathematician
believed we have a definition). But it will not be a definition, just
a representation in term of another notion, av-ctually the notion of
set. of course the notion of set is richer and even less definable
than numbers.
No content meant. Quantity???(vs. number?)
Having 10 digits on 2 hands is the 2nd mental evolutionary step
after recognizing 5 digits on 1 hand, which was the earlier stage
(among others old Hungarians had that and a folks music in
pentatonic scale). The 'ancient' computer-folks have ony 2 digits on
their mind, Yin and Yang (0 and 1) and voila they made lots of
marvels from this simplified system already. (You have that). And
the French? with quatrevingtdix for nonante? XC is not XX-XX-XX-XX-
X - Romans still recognizing the '5' as a basic tenet (V, L, D,) as
cornerstones in their number system.
Also your digital 0,9,8,7,6 and then 5,4,3,2,1 was trouble in
ancient Rome..
The Romans had no zero, yet used a (quasi) decimal system.
decimal? Without zero there is no position based notation for the
number.
However they did not write rather IV and then for 9: IX
anticipating V and X as the next one. They also subtracted 4 from 7
as counting backwards: like 7,6,5,4, which made 7-4=4 in all
calendar countings which was based on the subtraction of day-numbers
from the next 'fix' day in the month. Can you figure the
consequences of this in paying interest (or taxes?)
(That may be the reason why Muslims are banned from counting
interest).
I think your teaching is fine, but one has to know it before
learning it.
And: as a nun said to a friend when she had questions 'upon
thinking': you should not think, you should believe.
About the 12 digital creation: In J.Cohen - J.Stewart ('Chaos' and
'Reality') the Zarathustran 'aliens' had an 8 based thinking
(octimal) as best and perfect. Well, 10 gives a prime after one
halfing, 12 after two, 8 after 3. I think there were 12 digit
creatures but failed. 10 proved practical - maybe not because of the
decimal as best mathematical system. It just survived...
Your teachings made an enjoyable reading, thank you. I confess: I
did not count the 'I'-s just believed that there are 2009 of them.
It is not magical, in other calendar-countings the year has quite
different number of 'I'-s.
If I should ask a question: how would one note 1 billion on the
planet of centipeds with 8 fingers on all 100 feet? (Don't answer,
please). (Q2: which billion? the 1000M or the MM?)
Thanks for those kind and funny remarks and questions,
Best,
Bruno
John M
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Hi Kim,
I told you that to grasp the seventh step we have to do some little
amount of math.
Now math is a bit like consciousness or time, we know very well what
it is, but we cannot really define it, and such an encompassing
definition can depend on the philosophical view you can have on the
mathematical reality.
So, if I try to be precise enough so that the math will be applicable,
not just on the seventh step, but also on the 8th step and eventually
for the sketch of the AUDA, that is the arithmetical translation of
the universal dovetailer argument, I am tempted by providing the
philosophical clues, deducible from the
Re: Measure Increases or Decreases? - entropy
--- On Thu, 2/12/09, George Levy gl...@quantics.net wrote: I have also been overwhelmed by the volume on this list. The idea is not to take more than you can chew. Indeed. --- On Wed, 2/11/09, George Levy If that were the case, the Born Rule would fail. Perhaps the probability rule would be more like proportionality to norm^2 exp(entropy) instead of just norm^2. If that was it, then for example unstable nuclei would be observed to decay a lot faster than the Born Rule predicts. I do not understand why you say that the Born rule would fail. High entropy branches would have more probability than low entropy ones compared to the standard Born rule. Yes I am linking the entropy to MW branching. But you should realize that the Born rule is self-consistent in the face of branching. If there is branching to N states, then on average the squared norm of each will be 1/N of the original. That much is proven by the math. Linking squared norm to measure is of course a tougher issue. You say that the Born Rule would fail if measure *increases*. Actually, all I said was that it would fail if measure is linked to entropy. Any significant modification to it would make it fail. Using your own argument I could say that the Born rule would fail if measure *decreases *according to function f(t). For example it could be norm^2 f(t) . That would make it fail but if the modification is only a function of time it would be hard to detect. Making it a function of a branch-dependent observable like entropy leads to a much easier-to-detect deviation. So using your own argument since the Born rule is only norm^2 therefore measure stays constant? In ordinary experimental situations, total measure stays constant. In life or death situations there is a correction factor but it is well known: the measure in a given world is proportional to the number of people alive in it as well as to the squared norm. This is taken into account under the Anthropic principle, and explains why our universe seems fine-tuned for life even though worlds like that presumably have a relatively small total squared norm compared to the sum of the others. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: ASSA vs. RSSA and the no cul-de-sac conjecture was (AB continuity)
Excellent post Johnatan. Of course those who know a bit of AUDA (which I have already explained on the list) know that from the third person self-reference views we have cul-de-sac everywhere (we die all the times, cf the Papaioannou multiverses), and this is what forces us, when we want a theory of observation (which by UDA is a probability or credibilty calculus) to define the probabilities by imposing the absence of cul- de-sac. This is *the* motivation for the new box Bp Dt. Dt, by Kripke semantics, is equivalent to imposing the absence of cul-de-sac. Yet, by incompleteness Dt is not provable by the machine, and after we make the addition of the non-cul-de-sac principle (Dt), we loose the Kripke semantics. But this is a good news, given that we will have to manage (plausibly) continua of next observer momen or historiest. Apology for those who have not follow the (many) old modal posts, but we will soon or later come back to this. Read Boolos book (and mathematical logic books). Bruno On 12 Feb 2009, at 00:09, Johnathan Corgan wrote: While I wasn't around for the original ASSA vs. RSSA arguments on the list here, and I'm sure I'm risking a rehash of things back then, the recent traffic over adult vs. child and AB continuity seems to revolve around this anyway. It seems intuitively obvious to me that from a 1st-person perspective, I have to treat successor observer moments with a /conditional/ probability. My next observer moment I face would be selected from among only those where a), I am conscious, and b) those with memories of this one, or more generally, with a causal thread of continuity with this one (unitary evolution of SW). So my subjective expectation would then be the absolute probability of those occurring conditioned on, or given, that the one I'm in now has already occurred. It is an open question (to me at least) whether there are any observer moments without successors, i.e., where the amplitude of the SW goes to zero. If it does not, then this implies that the always branching tree of observer moments has no leaf nodes--rather, it becomes an ever finer filigree of lines, but any particular point will always have a downstream set of forks. This is the essence of the no cul-de-sac conjecture, and the crux of the quantum theory of immortality. If the above is true, then the absolute measure of an observer moment becomes irrelevant; it's clear that as one traces through a particular branch it would always be dramatically decreasing anyway. But the relative measure of my next observer moment to this one becomes the thing that drives my expectations of what I am likely to experience. Indeed, some version of me experiences all of them, but each split copy of me can only say to himself, what I am experiencing now was likely (or unlikely) given where I was a moment ago. Johnathan Corgan http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Measure Increases or Decreases? - Was adult vs. child
On 12 Feb 2009, at 02:59, Jack Mallah wrote: Hi George. The everything list feels just like old times, no? I am afraid we are just a bit bactracking 10 years ago. No problem. After all, concerning theology, I am asking people to backtrack 1500 years ago (1480 to be precise). Which is nice in a way but has a big drawback - I can only take so much of arguing the same old things, and being outnumbered. And that limit is approaching fast again. At least I think your point here is new to the list. --- On Wed, 2/11/09, George Levy gl...@quantics.net wrote: One could argue that measure actually increases continuously and corresponds to the increase in entropy occurring in everyday life. So even if you are 90 or 100 years old you could still experience an increase in measure. I guess you are basing that on some kind of branch-counting idea. If that were the case, the Born Rule would fail. Perhaps the probability rule would be more like proportionality to norm^2 exp(entropy) instead of just norm^2. If that was it, then for example unstable nuclei would be observed to decay a lot faster than the Born Rule predicts. Conventional half life calculations are accurate. So either entropy would not be a factor, or the MWI is experimentally disproven already. Well, if it is a weak enough function of entropy then maybe it hasn't been disproven, but inclusion of free parameters like that which can always be made small enough goes against Occam's Razor. Otherwise there'd be no end of possible correction factors. At least your idea was testable, with none of the meaningless first person sloganeering. Ideas like that, keep em' coming! So you stop at step two of the UDA? What is wrong with the definition of first and third person views notion? I gave a complete third person definition of both notions. (see the SANE 2004 paper). Or look at the arithmetical definition (the Theaetetic one); In any case, measure is measured over a continuum and its value is infinite to begin with. So whether it increases or decreases may be a moot point. It's not moot. Just take density ratios. The size of the universe may be infinite, but that didn't stop Hubble from saying it's getting bigger. As I said, the increase or decrease in measure is at the crux of this problem. Your paper really did not illuminate the issue in a satisfactory manner. It could no doubt use some tweaking, which is why I'm on the list now. I know I'm not always a good communicator. What should be clarified or added to it? You say: no randomness involved but you seem to accept probabilities. Do I just miss something here? You seem not taking the 1 pov / 3 pov distinction seriously into account. What does mean questioning immortality then? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Seventh Step 1 (Numbers and Notations)
I'm sorry but I can't resist to paste this short conversation between Lord Blackadder and his servant Baldrick. Maybe you know this british blackadder comedy. If you teach: III and III mean 3 and 7, then you said nothing, just named them. That was my point. To talk on notation. I just hope people understand enough the number so that if I ask them to give me 3 euros, they will not give me two or four. - Baldrick, if I have 2 beans and then I add 2 more beans, what do I have? - Some beans. - Yes... and no. Let's try again shall we? I have 2 beans, then I add 2 more beans. What does that make? - A very small casserole. - Baldrick, the ape creatures of the Indus have mastered this. Now try again. 1, 2, 3, 4. So how many are there? - 3 - What?! - And that one. - 3.. and that one. So if I add that 1 to the 3 what will I have? - Oh! Some beans. - Yes.. To you Baldrick the renaissance was just something that happened to other people wasn't it? mirek --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The arrow of time is the easiest computational direction for life in the manifold
Ronald, Thanks for the reference. Of course Lobo implicitly assume physicalism, so we cannot really built from that. I guess you know that Gödel is the first one showing that there exist solutions of Einstein's GR equations with closed time loop. Circling computations exist (trivially) in the universal deployment too, but they are eliminated in the ultimate measure because the set of such loops are countable. You can always bet you are not belonging to such loop. I would say (assuming comp). Best, Bruno On 04 Feb 2009, at 19:25, ronaldheld wrote: Bruno Have you seen this: V. Walsh, A theory of magnitude:common cortical metrics of time, spce and quantity, trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 483 (2003) This was a one reference in a paper on time I just read today( Time and Causation http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0559 Ronald On Jan 25, 3:02 am, Alberto G.Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: Brent: I tried to clarify my point of view in my previous response. This is my answer to these questions. On Jan 25, 5:53 am, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2009/1/24 Alberto G.Corona agocor...@gmail.com: But the fact is that in our univese, glasses do recompose themselves, the flame of the candles do recombines liberating oxygen and make grow the candle, objects lighter than water sink. Why? because these events exist in our space time; Just go in the reverse time dimension in our space-time manifold to see them. The laws of physics permits them. They are just reversible chemical reactions, reversible object collisions at the particle or macroscopic level. In terms of our perception of time, the outcomes we see happens just because they are cuasi-infinitely probable and the reverse counterparts, cuasi infinitely improbalbe. But, that is also an illlusion of the arrow of time, because , In terms of time- agnostic spacetime manifold reasoning, our life vector in space-time go along the increase of entrophy, not the other way around. That is: the outcomes of probability laws are a consequience of our trajectory in space time. Why our life follow this direction?. The reason is computational, as I said before. The question is often asked, why does time seem to progress in the increasing entropy direction? But if time were in fact progressing in the decreasing entropy direction, we would know no different. For example, if we were living in a simulation where 2009 is run first and 2008 is run second according to an external clock, we would not be able to tell from within the simulation. The real arrow of time question should be: why does entropy increase in the same direction in every observed part of the universe? Right. It's generally thought that the direction of increasing entropy is defined by the expansion of the universe since the expansion increases the available states for matter. But it's hard to show that this must also determine the radiation arrow of time. But at the micro-level of QM there is presumably no change in entropy, the evolution is unitary. So then the question becomes: Why the approximately classical world, in which the coarse-gained entropy does increase? Brent For only if the glass shattering occurred in a direction different to that of the mind of the observer would something unusual be noticed.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: continuity - cloning
On 12 Feb 2009, at 05:38, Tom Caylor wrote: But of course you would worry just as much if the clone were replaced by a zombie... I guess that gets back to the distinction between first person and third person. It seems to me that is the problem indeed. At the same time, it seems obvious to me that if you drop that distinction, you are eliminating the first person. Then we are not just mortal, we are already dead. Bruno On Feb 11, 9:05 pm, Tom Caylor daddycay...@msn.com wrote: The effects of have clones is interesting, though, regardless of the sapping strength notion. You would have reason to worry about being killed if there were clones and then a shell game was played with you being mixed up with the clones, and then all of the yous were killed except one. All of the yous would have reason to worry. This has implications on ethics of cloning and killing clones. As far as measure, it seems that having a clone of you and killing one of you while you were asleep would be equivalent (w.r.t how much you should worry at least) to not having any clones and someone saying they were going to roll a die and if it came up odd they would kill you. Tom On Feb 11, 8:44 pm, Jack Mallah jackmal...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Wed, 2/11/09, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: You agree that if one version of me goes to bed tonight and one version of me wakes up tomorrow, then I should expect to wake up tomorrow. But if extra versions of me are manufactured and run today, then switched off when I go to sleep, then you are saying that I might not wake up tomorrow. You won't know this evening if you are one of the extra versions or the original. So yes, in that situation, you will probably not be around tomorrow. Only the original will. The extra copies of me have somehow sapped my life strength. Not at all. I guess that is a joke? Creating more copies, then getting rid of the same number, does not result in a net decrease in measure. That is why the movie The Prestige bears no resemblance whatsoever to QS despite rumors to the contrary. If you create extra copies and leave them alive, there is a net increase in measure. That is equivalent to new people being born even if they have your memories. This once happenned to Will Riker on Star Trek: TNG.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: ASSA vs. RSSA and the no cul-de-sac conjecture was (AB continuity)
On 12 Feb 2009, at 14:30, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2009/2/12 Johnathan Corgan jcor...@aeinet.com: It is an open question (to me at least) whether there are any observer moments without successors, i.e., where the amplitude of the SW goes to zero. If it does not, then this implies that the always branching tree of observer moments has no leaf nodes--rather, it becomes an ever finer filigree of lines, but any particular point will always have a downstream set of forks. This is the essence of the no cul-de-sac conjecture, and the crux of the quantum theory of immortality. Does MWI suggest that everything that can occur does occur? The following article suggests not: http://scienceblogs.com/pontiff/2008/11/everything_and_nothing.php OK. Even in MWI, proving that 0 = 1 remains plausibly impossible. Of course believing that someone did proved that 0 = 1 remains quite possible. I guess it is still possible that the no cul-de-sac conjecture is correct even though some ways of avoiding death are impossible. Just try avoid death by squaring a circle :) Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Seventh Step 1 (Numbers and Notations)
My present inserts in Italics - some parts of the posts erased for brevity John On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Feb 2009, at 23:46, John Mikes wrote: (...) Not that if I see 'I' that means 1, but if I see 'III' that does not mean 3 to me, it means 111. You have to teach first what those funny 'figures' (3,7,etc.) mean. I don't have to do that. If you follow the thread, you will even understand why I cannot do that. *The existence and nature of numbers as well as our understanding of it will remain a mystery.* But assuming comp (and thus the numbers), we can understand why this is a necessary mystery. It is part of the unbridgeable gap which has to remain if we want to remain bot scientist and consistent. *JM: * *like a religion?* If you teach: III and III mean 3 and 7, then you said nothing, just named them. Br: That was my point. To talk on notation. I just hope people understand enough the number so that if I ask them to give me 3 euros, they will not give me two or four. *JM:* *now you swithch to quantity.* BR: Later we will axiomatize the theory of numbers. But I prefer to wait to be sure people understand the notion of number before axiomatizing. If I do the axiomatization too early, some people will believe I am rigorously defining the numbers, but this is a grave error. I will axiomatize the number to reason about them and to interview machines about the numbers. ** *JM: interviewing machines is no evasion of the topic. Axiomatizing in my vocabulary means to invent some unreal statement that justifies the otherwise not justified theory. I don't fight it in this case: with your numbers it may be (excusably) needed.* Numbers are as mysterius as consciousness and time. That is why mathematicians does not even try. But wait for the next thread, *I will give a definition of numbers* (which sometimes makes some mathematician believed we have a definition). But it will not be a definition, just a representation in term of another notion, av-ctually the notion of set. of course the notion of set is richer and even less definable than numbers. *JM: can't wait for your definition. Set is introduced? a many looking like a one? with lots of characteristics hidden? A table of 9 loose letters is no 'set' **by itself. * ** No content meant. Quantity???(vs. number?) (...) [to: Romans...] Br: decimal? Without zero there is no position based notation for the number. *JM: I consider a decimal system as more than just positioned numbers* *The Romans emphsised the exceptional role of 10 (X) 100 (C) 1000(M) (even if I play down V,L,D as auxilieries)* (...) I think your teaching is fine, but one has to know it before learning it. And: as a nun said to a friend when she had questions 'upon thinking': you should not think, you should believe. (...) Your teachings made an enjoyable reading, thank you. I confess: I did not count the 'I'-s just believed that there are 2009 of them. It is not magical, in other calendar-countings the year has quite different number of 'I'-s. (...) Br: Thanks for those kind and funny remarks and questions, Best, Bruno *JM:I take it lightly* *John M* On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi Kim, I told you that to grasp the seventh step we have to do some little amount of math. Now math is a bit like consciousness or time, we know very well what it is, but we cannot really define it, and such an encompassing definition can depend on the philosophical view you can have on the mathematical reality. So, if I try to be precise enough so that the math will be applicable, not just on the seventh step, but also on the 8th step and eventually for the sketch of the AUDA, that is the arithmetical translation of the universal dovetailer argument, I am tempted by providing the philosophical clues, deducible from the comp hypothesis, for the introduction to math. But I realize that this would entail philosophical discussion right at the beginning, and that would give to you the feeling that, well, elementary math is something very difficult, which is NOT the case. The truth is that philosophy of elementary math is difficult. So I have change my mind, and we will do a bit of math. Simply. It is far best to have a practice of math before getting involved in more subtle discussion, even if we will not been able to hide those subtleties when applying the math to the foundation of physics and cognition. I propose to you a shortcut to the seventh step. It is not a thorough introduction to math. Yet it starts from the very basic things. Let us begin. What I explain here is standard, except for the notations, and this for mailing technical reason. I guess you have heard about the Natural Numbers, also called Positive Integers. By default, when I use the word number, it
Re: ASSA vs. RSSA and the no cul-de-sac conjecture was (AB continuity)
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 04:48:22PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: Excellent post Johnatan. Of course those who know a bit of AUDA (which I have already explained on the list) know that from the third person self-reference views we have cul-de-sac everywhere (we die all the times, cf the Papaioannou multiverses), and this is what forces us, when we want a theory of observation (which by UDA is a probability or credibilty calculus) to define the probabilities by imposing the absence of cul- de-sac. This is *the* motivation for the new box Bp Dt. Dt, by Kripke semantics, is equivalent to imposing the absence of cul-de-sac. Yet, by incompleteness Dt is not provable by the machine, and after we make the addition of the non-cul-de-sac principle (Dt), we loose the Kripke semantics. But this is a good news, given that we will have to manage (plausibly) continua of next observer momen or historiest. I'm a little confused. Did you mean Dp here? Dp = -B-p Apology for those who have not follow the (many) old modal posts, but we will soon or later come back to this. Read Boolos book (and mathematical logic books). Bruno -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpco...@hpcoders.com.au Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Which Darwin?
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 09:05:20AM -0800, Tom Caylor wrote: Today is Charles Darwin's 200th birthday (the 150th anniversay of the publication of On the Origin of Species, and we Americans at least are also celebrating the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln. Perhaps at this milestone it would be good to bring up the question, What bearing does Darwin's legacy have on the topic here on the Everything List? Of course that begs the question, What is Darwin's legacy? I, for one, think evolution has everything to do with this topic. Chapters 6 7 of my book present my argument - I'd be wasting bandwidth by reposting it here. David Deutsch also argues for evolution's importance in FOR, in his own way. I happen to think that my presentation is a decade younger, and a decade more sophisticated, but that essentially it is the same argument. One difference that I have observed, to put it in words sometimes used on this List, is in whether or not the first person experience is accepted as a reality that cannot be reduced to a third person view. Perhaps on the no first/third person disctinction side of this fence is Dennet, as in his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, where he maintains that the whole process of evolution, and in fact all of reality, can be reduced to an algorithm. To be truthful, I don't think the concept of an algorithm even makes sense without a 1/3 person distinction. Without at least two layers of description, there can be no information ( no complexity nor entropy) - see chapter 2 of my book. On the other side of the fence might be Gould, or the biologist Carl Woese, as in his paper A New Biology for a New Century. Another way to state this difference is to say that the mind/body problem is is/is not solvable. If it is, then perhaps reductionism is valid, and this would shed a different light on the Everything problem. It it is not, this would shed a different light on the whole thing. Any thoughts on this deep and wide arena? P.S. I'm hoping this doesn't start a rant against anti-science views, of which I am not a holder. There is something far deeper going on here. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpco...@hpcoders.com.au Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
