Re: objections to QTI

[aet.radal ssg]

- Original Message - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: Saibal Mitra 
Subject: Re: objections to QTI 
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 15:24:56 +0200 

 
 
 Le 01-juin-05, à 15:00, Saibal Mitra a écrit : 
 
  Hi Norman, 
    
  I entirely agree with Julian Barbour. A fundamental notion of 
  time would act as a pointer indicating what is real (things that 
  are happening now) and what was real and what will be real. Most 
  of us here on the everything list believe that in a certain sense 
  'everything exists', so the notion of a fundamental time would be 
  contrary to this idea. I think that that most here on the list 
  would consider time as a first person phenomena 
 
 

Barbour doesn't believe in time at all, let alone fundamental time. Barbour 
doesn't talk about space-time capsules because he doesn't believe that time 
exists. 
 Indeed. (SGrz pour those who knows). I would like to know if Norman 
 and Saibal and others agree that there is nothing special with 
 time. Why does not Julian Barbour talk about space-time capsule? 
 (Or does he?) 
 I think space is also a first person phenomena. OK? 
 
 Bruno 
 
 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ 

I completely disagree with Barbour. Just for the record.

-- 
___
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

No torture

[aet.radal ssg]

"No tortue".
Now, sit and contemplate if you felt a difference when, after reading message after message with the opposite words in it, and then suddenly you see "No tortue". 

-- 
___Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Re: Implications of MWI

[aet.radal ssg]

No. For me, it explained a number things that I had questions about. Learning that there seemed to be a scientific reason for what was going on changed my worldview. It added order to what was beginning to look rather chaotic.- Original Message - From: "Mark Fancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Implications of MWI Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:36:03 -0400   Did accepting and understanding the MWI drastically alter your  philosophical worldview? If so, how?   I cannot answer this question myself because I do not truly understand  many parts of it.   Thanks   --  Mark Fancey  Anti-Bushite  Bullshite 
-- 
___Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Re: Implications of MWI

[aet.radal ssg]

I just realized that "MWI" in the discussion meant "many worlds immortality" not the standard "many worlds interpretation".I don't have a lot time to sift through the discussions, soI missed that point.I don't buy "MW Immortality " in that case, so it hasn't had any effect on my worldview at all.
"Go 'W'"- Original Message -From: "aet.radal ssg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: everything-list@eskimo.comSubject: Re: Implications of MWIDate: Sun, 01 May 2005 18:15:38 -0500No. For me, it explained a number things that I had questions about. Learning that there seemed to be a scientific reason for what was going on changed my worldview. It added order to what was beginning to look rather chaotic.- Original Message - From: "Mark Fancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Implications of MWI Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:36:03 -0400   Did accepting and understanding the MWI drastically alter your  philosophical worldview? If so, how?   I cannot answer this question myself because I do not truly understand  many parts of it.   Thanks   --  Mark Fancey  Anti-Bushite  Bullshite -- 
___Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.comhttp://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
-- 
___Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

[aet.radal ssg]

- Original Message - From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 22:40:46 +1000  snip I don't see how you could get anywhere if you disregard the  relationship between observer moments. It is this relationship  which allows grouping of different observer moments to give the  effect of a continuous stream of consciousness. The human brain is  a machine which produces just such a sequence of observer moments,  which bear a temporal relationship with each other consistent with  your TIME postulate. But I would still say that these related  observer moments are independent of each other in that they are not  necessarily physically or causally connected. I base this on real  life experience (the fact that I feel I am the same person as I was  10 years ago even though I am now made up of different atoms, in an  only approximately similar configuration, giving rise to only  approximately similar memories and other mental properties),
I would question whether you really"feel" that you are the same person you were 10 years ago. 10 years ago you were 10 years younger. Do you "feel" like you are that age now? 10 years ago there were things that you had no knowledge of, that you do now. Just as you are made up of different atoms, etc now, you also have different experiences, and expanded knowledge base, etc. In other words, you are not the same person and you really don't "feel" like you're the same person. However, you are the sentient human entity that was born however many years ago and have accumulated the sum total of knowledge, experience, etc, that you have so far. That said, the observer moments that you have are connected because they're your observer moments and are compared against your base of past experience, etc. They are casually connected if they are moments that are observed in the first place. You're at bat in a ball game and the pitcher throws the ball and you swing and miss and the ball hits you. Each moment in that sequence is related casually and temporally with the other. The moments can be recalled separately but there is still a casual link.
and on  thought experiments where continuity of identity persists despite  disruption of the physical and causal link between the earlier and  the later set of observer moments (teleportation etc.).
We don't have teleportation yet, especially the demat/remat type (which IMHO is impossible), so I don't see how invoking that is reasonable. Taking a chance to interpret your intent otherwise, I would say that disruption of so-called physical and casual links can happen anytime consciousness is lost, ie sleep, blow to the head, anesthesia, etc. It doesn't support your argument about observer moments being separate in any case.
  Another question: what are the implications for the TIME postulate  raised by certain mental illnesses, such as cerebral lesions  leading to total loss of short term memory, so that each observer  moment does indeed seem to be unrelated to the previous ones from  the patient's point of view? 
The implication is obvious: the "machine" is broken. Therefore the conclusions based on the information that it gathers and processes is defective.
Or, in psychotic illnesses the patient  can display what is known as "formal thought disorder", which in  the most extreme cases can present as total fragmentation of all  cognitive processes, so that the patient speaks gibberish ("word  salad" is actually the technical term), cannot reason at all,  appears unable to learn from the past or anticipate the future, and  reacts to internal stimuli which seem to vary randomly from moment  to moment. In both these cases, the normal subjective sense of time  is severely disrupted, but the patient is still fully conscious,  and often bewildered and distressed. 
Exactly. Broken. No more capable of accurate determination of what is casual, temporal or anything else than a computer is capable of accuratefunctioning after its been damaged by a virus or some other disruptive event. I had a pocket calculator get wet once and all I could get out of it when I attempted calculations were wrong numbers and sometimesabstract partial digital displays. I no more consideredwhat I was getting from the calculator as valid than I dothe perceptions ofa patient with "formal thought disorder". The point is their perceptions are wrong, not just different, they're inaccurate and can be demonstrated to be so. It's not good science to baseideas of temporal reality, and other related issues, on someone who's mentally deficient.
  --Stathis Papaioannou   _  REALESTATE: biggest buy/rent/share listings http://ninemsn.realestate.com.au 
-- 
___Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

[aet.radal ssg]

Dear Stathis:- Original Message -From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], everything-list@eskimo.comSubject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortalityDate: Mon, 09 May 2005 23:02:18 +1000  Dear aet.radal ssg,  I think you missed my point about the amnesic and psychotic  patients, which is not that they are clear thinkers, but that they  are conscious despite a disability which impairs their perception  of time. 
OK, let me take what you just said there, "conscious despite a disability which impairs their perception of time". A person can be conscious and have any number of disabilities that impair their perception of reality. Doesn't mean that their perception is accurate, valid, or even mildly interesting. The word "impair" should have been a clue.
Your post raises an interesting question in that you seem  to assume that normally functioning human minds have a correct  model of reality, as opposed to the "broken" minds of the mentally  ill. This is really very far from the truth.
If the mentally ill had a correct perception of reality, they wouldn't be mentally ill. Hello? Simultaneously, not all sane people have a "correct model of reality" (whatever that means) but they usually know what they're doing on a basic level and function without taking medication to keep them tuned into reality and not the psycho channel. It doesn't mean that they can't be motivated by wrong ideas or misconceptions or even manipulated by somebody smater or with political power, but we're talking apples and oranges now.
Human brains evolved  in a specific environment, often identified as the African  savannah, so the model of the world constructed by the human mind  need only match "reality" to the extent that this promoted survival  in that environment.
And if their perception of that reality environment hadn't been correct, they wouldn't have survived. Simultaneously, other creatures, in that same environment, developed other ways other perceiving it. The point you're missing is that the environment is the same. If I take an array of sophisticated measuring and recording devices into that environment, I should be able to detect all of the aspects that most of the non-insect creatures do, and in some cases, a lot of the insect perceptions. However, if I introduce a paranoid schizophrenic into the equation, I will probably not detect the hallucinations that he will see, though I may be able to identify possible external causes.
As a result, we humans are only able to  directly perceive and grasp a tiny, tiny slice of physical reality.
Which doesn't make the hallucinations of the mentally ill or those with cognitive disabilities, any more valid.
 Furthermore, although we are proud of our thinking abilities, the  theories about physical reality that humans have come up with over  the centuries have in general been ridiculously bad. 
I think part of the problem here is the use of the term "reality" when something else would be better. Since you failed to give any examples of what you meant by "theories about physical reality" I will assume that you mean the matters dealing with the nature of the Earth and its place in the solar system, etc. If not, please be specific. In any case, much of those errors in perception had to do with physical limitations in the ability to conduct accurate observations, further crippled by various philosophical dogma. 
I have spent the last ten years treating patients with schizophrenia, and I can  assure you that however bizarre the delusional beliefs these people  come up with, there are multiple historical examples of apparently  "sane" people holding even more bizarre beliefs, and often  insisting on pain of death or torture that everyone else agree with  them.
Hallucinations aren't the same as religious or philosophical dogmatic beliefs and usually don't operate the same way, no matter how destructive or misguided the latter might be. I think I detect a straw man here.
Itstill doesn't make your case that the inability to perceive time accurately is a valid condition on which to postulate ideas about temporal moments not being physically connected. I've done plenty of research in the area of consciousness - links between schizophrenia, psychedelic drug states and self-induced drug-free altered states, the psychology of creativity, comparisons between possible schizophrenic perceptions of parallel worlds and other possible perceptions through various altered states, etc. I'm building, and hope to test this summer, a technological platformthrough which some schizophrenics might be able, under clinical supervision,to learn to tune out manyof their hallucinations. So I know my way around these issues and I'm just saying that you haven't made your case. 
  You might point out that despite the above, science has made great  progress. 
Actually, I didn't and don't have to.
This

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

[aet.radal ssg]

Dear Jeanne:
Message - From: "Jeanne Houston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 07:19:01 -0400 
I didn't read the article but I am aware of the conceptual basis for this idea. To answer your question, it is possible that altered states, including those caused by mental illness, can allow the brain to pick-up information from elsewhere. However, the differentiation must be made between such elsewhere (or elsewhen) awarenesses and true hallucinations (the same goes for dreams. Some people postulate that some dreams could be awarenesses of other realities but then use lucid dreaming as an example. Right idea, wrong type of dream). Many of the hallucinations common to schizophrenics are based on outside stimuli triggering a preconvieved viewpoint which is then externalized as a hallucination. For example, such a patient may be on his way to the pharmacy to get a prescription filled and see abillboard for an auto body repair shop that features a close-up shot of a man cowering in fear that says "Watch Out! The Morons are Out There!" (a true advertisement). This billboard could stimulate a reaction in the patient based upon the apprehension that the doctor may not know what he's doing and prescribed the wrong medication. This reaction could manifest itself as a merely a thought, "Yeah. And I bet my shrink's a moron too!" or it could extend into the outside world if the patient looks back at the sign. Suddenly the sign could have its own response to this sudden thought that the patient's psychiatrist is a moron and could read something like "Yes! Your shrink's a moron and he's out to get you!" 
This is based on research done by Janssen Pharmaceutica http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/aug/schizophrenia/in the development of a simulator of the schizophrenic experience. The simulator was created with the input of actual patients to make it as realistic as possible, and I have used it before, as part of my research. In this case, the hallucinations of the schizophrenic are based on internalapprehensions and are not observations of some parallel reality.The tendency should be resisted to simply assume that just because someone is perceiving something that we aren't, that what they're are perceiving is somehow linked to someinterdimensional knowledgeor higher reality. If one wants to take that tact, then they must also engage in the very real hard work of substantiating exactly what the nature of these perceptions are and if they have any kind of objective basis. To do that takes a considerable amount of work. Otherwise the question goes unanswered and any consideration of what is or isn'tgoing on is simply unbridled speculation.
Hope that helps.
  I once read an article in, I believe, Time Magazine, about the relatively  new field of "neurotheology" which investigates what goes on in the brain  during ecstatic states, etc. One suggestion that intrigued me was that it  may be possible that in such a state, and I believe that schizophrenics were  also mentioned, that the brain is malfunctioning in such a way as to allow  it to perceive states of reality other than that which the normal brain  would perceive. In other words, the "antenna" (brain) is picking-up signals  that are usually beyond the scope of the normal brain. I wondered if anyone  could comment on this, and if there was any reason to even entertain the  thought that perhaps some people have passed through a crack in the division  between our universe or dimension, into perhaps another? I read this  several years ago and wish that I could recall the details of the article,  but I don't have it anymore.   Jeanne 

-- 
___Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

[aet.radal ssg]

Dear Stathis:
Your interpretation of my "anger" says more about you than me. I didn't flame you or call you or mentally ill people names. My only point is that if you want to seriously investigate complex concepts scientifically, then it helps to have the most accurate methods available. Even considering that a person with an illness that prevents them from having temporal awareness (or knowing the difference between one moment to the next) could havesome significance on understanding the nature of time is folly for the simple reason it is time that being effected in their case, its their brain's ability to percieve it. Their condition is having know objective effect on time at all. It would be diiferent if you put such a person in a room with a bunch of measuring devices and then detected that temporal anomalies were recorded of some kind, but that doesn't happen. Their perceptions are completely subjective, ie inconsequential, unless you're studying their condition. But, if the purpose of your research is time, like mine is, data based on the perceptions of such an individual is useless, unless, like I suggested, you really just want to jabber about this and that idea, with no criteria for trying to seriously understand the subject at hand.
If these comments upset so much that you think I'm angry, that's on you. I'm simply pointing out what should have been painfully obvious at the onset - you don't make measurement with broken instruments.
- Original Message -From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], everything-list@eskimo.comSubject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortalityDate: Wed, 11 May 2005 17:10:30 +1000  Dear aet.radal.ssg,  You make a few interesting points which under normal circumstances  I would be happy to continue discussing with you, but the primary  motivation for your posts seems to be anger that I have raised the  topic of mental illness. I am sorry if I have upset you, and I hope  that if you do have the opportunity to work with the mentally ill  in future you will treat them with compassion.  --Stathis Papaioannou   From: "aet.radal ssg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  To: everything-list@eskimo.com  Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality  Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 09:41:27 -0500  

-- 
___Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

[aet.radal ssg]

Why am I not surprised that I disagree with this response?- Original Message - From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 23:25:28 +1000   The obvious and sensible-sounding response to Jeanne's question  whether it may be possible to access other universes through dreams  or hallucinations is that it is not really any more credible than  speculation that people can contact the dead, or have been  kidnapped by aliens, or any other of the millions of weird things  that so many seem to believe despite the total lack of supporting  evidence. 
Actually, if a person believes they are perceiving a parallel reality a number of questions must be asked first. 1. Is this supposed to be a branch off of our world or is it a world that is distantly related or not related at all? 2. Having identified what type of world, then as much information should be gathered about it as possible to create a database that can be analyzed for evidence from which determinations can be made as to whether the person really is perceiving a parallel world of some kind of just has mental issues. The easiest case would be one where the person in question claims to have awareness of some other world with different technology. If they can't describe it any more than on a superficial level, then the probability is high that its all just some kind of dellusion. However, if they can, especially to the point of it beingreproduced here, and especially if they can describe a number of devices or technologies which don't exist here but can be produced here, then I would say that it warrants a much closer look. 
The greater the detail a person can obtain from their perceptions, the easier it is to map out a description of the other world. If the detail is great enough, then it might be possible to at least decide that even if it can't be conclusive as to whether or not the information is derived from parallel world perception or a highly detailed hallucination, a better understanding can be had of what it is the person is experiencing. For example, 30 years ago a person walks into a psychiatrist's office and talks about how he keeps having visions of the world and it's all weird. After a number of sessions, the psychiatrist learns that the patient has perceptions of the world where the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, there's a major conflict in the Mid East with Iraq, and the World Trade Center doesn't exist anymore. Not enough detail. Could be just wild imagination based on obvious scenarios. However, if the patient starts naming names like George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden, Putin, etc. then the psychiatrist can begin to construct that database and see if any of these people really exist. The more data, the better. Eventually extrapolations can be made as to whether the patient is seeing the future of the world that they're in or perhaps a parallel world. 
This is an oversimplification of how the process really works, but one that points a direction for how these kinds of questions are actually investigated. BTW, 30 years ago, almost all science fiction written about the near future, had the Soviet Union still in existence. Anyone saying that they had perceptions of a future where it no loner existed, without the use of nuclear war, would truely have been seen as crazy. Yet, they would have been correct.
However, this response is completely wrong if MWI is  correct. If I dream tonight that a big green monster has eaten the  Sydney Opera House, then definitely, in some branch of the MW, a  big green monster will eat the Sydney Opera House. 
Actually, MWI doesn't mean that just because you think (or dream something) that it happens somewhere. The big green monster that eats the Sydney Opera House could just be some bad vegamite you had. Just like the hallucinations of mentally ill people, or for that matter, drug users, aren't valid observations of reality.
Of course, this  unfortunate event will occur even if I *don't* dream it, 
The event will only happen if it's a valid perception of another world. Could be other things. Those other things always have to be taken into consideration.
but I'mnot saying that my dream caused it, only that I saw it happening. 
Dreams rarely, if ever, have a causal effect just in and of themselves. Causality usually results from taking action because of the dream.
 It might also be argued that I didn't really "receive" this  information from another branch, but that it was just a coincidence  that my dream matched the reality in the other branch. 
Of course if it happens in another branch you won't have any other form of confirmation of it besides another dream, which is not all that helpful. There exits a criteria for trying to determine whether a dream should even be considered a possible parallel universe dream.
But seersdon't see things by putting two and two together; they just, well,  *see* 

Re: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

[aet.radal ssg]

Dear Saibal:
Could you explain the paradox you've created by saying, "In the film Nash was closelyacquainted to persons that *didn't realy exist*." and "One could argue that the persons that Nash was seeing in fact did exist *(inour universe)*, precisely because Nash's brain was simulating them."
What is the definition of "really"? What makes something "exist in our universe" if it only "really" exits in somebody's mind? 
- Original Message -From: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: everything Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortalityDate: Fri, 13 May 2005 03:11:21 +0200



One could say that the brain of some schizophrenic persons simulate otherpersons. I don't know if some of you have seen the film 'A Beautiful mind'about the life of mathematician Nash. In the film Nash was closelyacquainted to persons that didn't realy exist. Only much later when he wastreated for his condition did he realize that some of his close friendsdidn't really exist.One could argue that the persons that Nash was seeing in fact did exist (inour universe), precisely because Nash's brain was simulating them.Saibal

-- 
___Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

[aet.radal ssg]

 From: "Jesse Mazer"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], everything-list@eskimo.com  Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality  Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 14:48:17 -0400   Generally, unasked-for attempts at armchair psychology to explain  the motivations of another poster on an internet forum, like the  comment that someone "just wants to hear themself talk", are  justly considered flames and tend to have the effect of derailing  productive discussion.
I indicated that it wasn't a flame and just an observation. You later prove me right.
I actually agree with your other comments  about it being implausible that the mentally ill have some sort  of superior insight into reality,
Funny, it took my "flame" to get anyone to respond to that point, and the only one was you.
but hey, this list is all about  rambling speculations about half-formed ideas that probably won't  pan out to anything, you could just as easily level the same  accusation against anyone here.
 Jesse 
And so you reinforce my "flame". "Rambling speculations about half-formed ideas that probably won't pan out to anything" is a good description of talking to hear ones-self talk. If it's not going to pan out anyway, then it's pretty meaningless. If it's "rambling" it's fairly incoherent, and if the ideas are half-formed then what's the point to begin with? It's not to further any concrete understanding of anything. It's not to create any better models of reality, how could you with rambling, "half-formed" ideas?The pretense of anything serious being discussed or with any kind of serious thought behind it, should be dropped, then. Save peoplelike me the wasted time of even joining in the first place.The only reason I won't quit the list for now is that ,once and a while, somebody actually sayssomething interesting that' worth taking note of. I'll just let all the rambling comments about areas that I actually work in, slide from here on out -since now it's official that the standardhere is half-formed ideas that won't pan out.


-- 
___Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Re: White Rabbit vs. Tegmark

[aet.radal ssg]

Without getting into a long hurrang, I think that Tegmark is correct, at least 
in part. Briefly, there has to be a reason why these alternate worlds exist. 
I'm referring to the Everett-Wheeler hypothesis and not just wishful thinking. 
Granted, if I remember correctly, Tegmark does deal with the whole issue in 
terms of mathematical models, which I don't really care for, however, I can 
tolerate it. 

As for the issue of measurement, all possible worlds can be viewed as still 
existing, without measurement, in a superpositional state, until they are 
observed (or measured). So you still get a plurality of worlds. 
My question is how does anyone know whether law-like worlds  vastly outnumber 
lawful ones?

If I have to, I can go look up Tegmark's Scientific American article on it all, 
to get a refresher on it. I'm just hoping I don't have to.

I met Tegmark about a year ago or so. Nice guy. I stumbled into his office, 
since the door was open, and introduced myself, mentioning that I was also an 
Everett man. Everett-man? he replied puzzled. Yeah, you know - Hugh 
Everett, Everett/Wheeler hypothesis? at which point he excitedly jumped out of 
his seat and shook my hand, laughing.




- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leahy 
To: EverythingList 
Subject: White Rabbit vs. Tegmark 
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 00:03:55 +0100 (BST) 

 
 
 I looked into this mailing list because I thought I'd come up with 
 a fairly cogent objection to Max Tegmark's version of the 
 everything thesis, i.e. that there is no distinction between 
 physical and mathematical reality... our multiverse is one 
 particular solution to a set of differential equations, not 
 privileged in any way over other solutions to the same equations, 
 solutions to other equations, and indeed any other mathemetical 
 construct whatsoever (e.g. outputs of UTMs). 
 
 Sure enough, you came up with my objection years ago, in the form 
 of the White Rabbit paradox. Since usage is a bit vague, I'll 
 briefly re-state it here. The problem is that worlds which are 
 law-like, that is which behave roughly as if there are physical 
 laws but not exactly, seem to vastly outnumber worlds which are 
 strictly lawful. Hence we would expect to see numerous departures 
 from laws of nature of a non-life-threating kind. 
 
 This is a different objection to the prediction of a complete 
 failure of induction... it's true that stochastic universes with no 
 laws at all (or where laws abruptly cease to function) should be 
 vastly more common still, but they are not observed due to 
 anthropic selection. 
 
 A very similar argument (rubbish universes) was put forward long 
 ago against David Lewis's modal realism, and is discussed in his 
 On the plurality of worlds. As I understand it, Lewis's defence 
 was that there is no measure in his concept of possible worlds, 
 so it is not meaningful to make statements about which kinds of 
 universe are more likely (given that there is an infinity of both 
 lawful and law-like worlds). This is not a defense which Tegmark 
 can make, since he does require a measure (to give his thesis some 
 anthropic content). 
 
 It seems to me that discussion on this list back in 1999 more or 
 less concluded that this was a fatal objection to Tegmark's version 
 of the thesis, although not to some alternatives based exclusively 
 on UTM programs (e.g. Russell Standish's Occam's Razor paper). 
 
 Is this a fair summary, or is anyone here prepared to defend Tegmark's 
 thesis? 
 
 Paddy Leahy 
 
 == 
 Dr J. P. Leahy, University of Manchester, 
 Jodrell Bank Observatory, School of Physics  Astronomy, 
 Macclesfield, Cheshire SK11 9DL, UK 
 Tel - +44 1477 572636, Fax - +44 1477 571618 

-- 
___
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

Re: Challenging the Basic Assumptions

[aet.radal ssg]

I'd rather be reading quantum physics, but...

- Original Message - 
From: Lee Corbin 
To: everything-list@eskimo.com 
Subject: Challenging the Basic Assumptions 
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 18:53:34 -0700 

 
 aet writes 
  Jesse [writes]  but hey, this list is all about rambling speculations 
  about 
   half-formed ideas that probably won't pan out to anything, 
   you could just as easily level the same accusation against 
   anyone here. 
 
 Well, a number of us are under the impression that we are being 
 very real, and actually very concrete. Also, a number of us 
 consider ourselves to be dyed-in-the-wool skeptics. 
 
 All speculations need to be challenged. Without criticism, 
 no idea has passed the test. Every time one criticizes someone's 
 idea, he or she is doing them a big favor. 
 
 aet: 
  Rambling speculations about half-formed ideas that probably 
  won't pan out to anything is a good description of talking 
  to hear ones-self talk. If it's not going to pan out anyway, 
  then it's pretty meaningless. 
 
 Yes, but we don't know until we try.

Usually, from what I've seen, there seems to be an attitude of not trying. And 
I'm only quoting Jesse.

Actually, my hat is off 
 to those who'll spend the time to work out theories. They know 
 that the chance is one in a million that it'll be *their* 
 theory that is the new paradigm. But they try anyway, and 
 I want to know about it. 
 

I'll let you know when my book is out.

  The only reason I won't quit the list for now is that, once 
  and a while, somebody actually says something interesting that's 
  worth taking note of. I'll just let all the rambling comments 
  about areas that I actually work in, slide from here on out - 
  since now it's official that the standard here is half-formed 
  ideas that won't pan out. 
 
 Well :-) of course, everyone hopes his ideas will pan out. 
 
 But since you are *so* skeptical (which is good), why don't you 
 try to pin down people's outrageous statements. (I know, you 
 have already been trying, to some degree.) The burden of proof 
 is on *them*, remember. 
 

I'm not really skeptical, just have a low tolerance for obvious of b.s. But 
in the end, I don't care what people think.

 Be patient. Be nice. And perhaps most important of all, be 
 redundant. That is, to eliminate confusion ask a question 
 at least twice, but in different ways. 
 

Unfortunately, my heavy work load leads me to not want to have to do that. It 
makes posts inordinately long winded.

 (I just made that point redundantly, and I think that most people 
 appreciate this when it's done.) 
 

I didn't know this was the little yellow bus crowd. I'll have to keep that in 
mind. Like, I didn't know the list was frequented by the kids that ride the 
little yellow bus to school, so I'll remember that, next time I write 
something, here...again.


 Keep up your good work! People here may learn something, and 
 so may you. 
 
 Lee

I could only hope. In both cases of course. Meaning the little yellow bus 
people learn something, and me too. 

-- 
___
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

Re: White Rabbit vs. Tegmark

[aet.radal ssg]

I would agree with Russell, here. That's what I meant when I said that I didn't 
like Tegmark's mathematical model but I could tolerate it. In the end, it gives 
me what I need in that it supports parallel universes and doesn't threaten E/W, 
etc. At the same time, I don't have a dog in every fight, so until I see 
something about his theory that is simply untenable, I'll let it slide.

- Original Message - 
From: Russell Standish 
To: Patrick Leahy 
Subject: Re: White Rabbit vs. Tegmark 
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 09:47:22 +1000 

 
 On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 12:03:55AM +0100, Patrick Leahy wrote: 
 
 ... 
 
  A very similar argument (rubbish universes) was put forward 
  long ago against David Lewis's modal realism, and is discussed in 
  his On the plurality of worlds. As I understand it, Lewis's 
  defence was that there is no measure in his concept of 
  possible worlds, so it is not meaningful to make statements 
  about which kinds of universe are more likely (given that there 
  is an infinity of both lawful and law-like worlds). This is not a 
  defense which Tegmark can make, since he does require a measure 
  (to give his thesis some anthropic content). 
  
  It seems to me that discussion on this list back in 1999 more or 
  less concluded that this was a fatal objection to Tegmark's 
  version of the thesis, although not to some alternatives based 
  exclusively on UTM programs (e.g. Russell Standish's Occam's 
  Razor paper). 
  
  Is this a fair summary, or is anyone here prepared to defend 
  Tegmark's thesis? 
  
  Paddy Leahy 
  
 
 I think most of us concluded that Tegmark's thesis is somewhat 
 ambiguous. One interpretation of it that both myself and Bruno tend 
 to make is that it is the set of finite axiomatic systems (finite sets 
 of axioms, and recusively enumerated theorems). Thus, for example, the 
 system where the continuum hypothesis is true is a distinct 
 mathematical system from one where it is false. 
 
 Such a collection can be shown to be a subset of the set of 
 descriptions (what I call the Schmidhuber ensemble in my paper), and 
 has some fairly natural measures associated with it. As such, the 
 arguments I make in Why Occam's razor paper apply just as much to 
 Tegmark's ensemble as Schmidhuber's. 
 
 Conversely, if you wish to stand on the phrase all of mathematics 
 exists then you will have trouble defining exactly what that means, 
 let alone defining a measure. 
 
 Cheers 
 
 -- 
 *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which 
 is of type application/pgp-signature. Don't worry, it is not a 
 virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this 
 email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you 
 may safely ignore this attachment. 
 
  
 A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile) 
 Mathematics 0425 253119 () 
 UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks 
 International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 
  
 2.dat  

-- 
___
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

Re: Sociological approach

[aet.radal ssg]

Forgiveness for any typos. I'm in a hurry here. I was going to reply to Miller's message directly, but I see where I can kill two birds with one stone:- Original Message - From: "Patrick Leahy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: rmiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: Sociological approach Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 11:04:53 +0100 (BST)On Sun, 22 May 2005, rmiller wrote:I'm approaching this as a sociologist with some physics   background so I'm focusing on what the behavior system perceives   ("measures"). If all possible worlds exist in a superpositional   state, then the behavior system should likewise exist in a   superpositional state. 
If the behavior system is the things that measures, the yes it could be said to exist in a superpositional state.
  First, it looks like you are confusing the multiverse of QM with  the plenitude of "all theories" or all UTM programs (Level 3 with  Level 4 multiverse in Tegmark's terminology). Different level 4  worlds do not superpose, they don't relate to each other in any  way, by definition.  
I'm glad that Patrick pointed this out. The UTM programs or Level 3 and 4 from Tegmark's theory I can do without. I think they lie in the realm of pure speculation and have little bearing on what we could actually hope to experience. This is what I meant by the mathematical models that Tegmark had and my being able to tolerate them, but not really needing them at all. I think Miller's comment above is fine for QM models. 
 Second, in QM you need to distinguish between two kinds of  superposition: those which cause interference effects (e.g. 2-slit  experiment), and those which don't (because the wave functions of  the superposed "worlds" don't overlap or are incoherent). 
There are physicists who would disagree with the idea that they never overlap. It's a feature from E/W that's been changing over the years. I think also, from the way that Patrick states that "superposed worlds don't overlap", it could be said that if the worlds are "superposed" they are part of the same wave function. After all, what does a wave function describe besides the possible states that the thing that it describes could be in?
 "Behaviour systems" are complicated enough that it is a  mathematical certainty that they fall in the second class. In which  case there is no way to detect that the superposition is happening;  for all practical purposes each world goes its own sweet way.  
I would tend to agree with this. The behavior system being in a superpositional state really has to do with measurement and observation. In the Schroedinger Cat example,taken to the extreme, it has been said that the experimenter, who will make the observation of the state of the cat, is in a superpositional state for the person outside the labuntil the experimenter opens the door to announce which state the cat wasfound in,and for thoseoutside the building, the person who was waiting outside the lab is in a superpositional state until...
  If there are say, 10 possible "worlds" available to the   behavioral state (percipient) but each world differs from the   other by elements that are not observed by the percipient, then   the behavior system is under the assumption that interaction is   taking place with a single, unified environment.   
Exactly. The question though is what doesPatrick mean by "available". Taken literally, I would interpret it as the 10 worlds form a superpositional state from which the percipient may observe one of the 10, thus "the behavior system is under the assumption that interaction is taking place with a single, unified enviroment." I think, "unified" can be left out of it, because it leads one to possible think that the 10 worlds are then merged into one at that point, when that's not what the case would be. The other 9 would exist in decoherence and be unavailable to the percipient, under normal conditions.
  Recalling the Copenhagen interpretation: does Chicago exist if   you happen to be by yourself in a hotel room in Des Plaines, IL?   The answer is irrelevant until the behavior system begins to   experience some aspect of Chicago. 
I'm not sure that "the answer is irrelevant" until the behavior system begins to experience some aspect of Chicago. Afterall, if the answer is "No, Chicago doesn't exist", then there would be no aspect of Chicago to experience. I would say that from the point of view of a person by their self in a hotel romm in Des Plaines, IL the answer would be "probably", but as we know from recent history, for a person from New York on a vacation in the heart of the Amazon and cut-off from any media, you could ask them on 9-11, "hey you're here in the heart of the Amazon. Do you think the World Trade Center still exists?" and they'd probably say, "Sure. Why wouldn't it?". It's the realistic version of that stupid philosophical question, "Does a tree make a noise when it falls in a forest, if there's no one around to hear it?" The answer of course is "yes", due to 

Re: Sociological approach

[aet.radal ssg]

I think I can answer to the whole message by saying "no way" isn't always "the way". The EPR paradox was supposed to prove quantum theory was wrong because it supposedly violated relativity. Alain Aspect proved that EPR actually worked as advertised, however it does so without violating relativity. Likewise I think there are ways that information, and perhaps other things, may be able to tunnel between worlds, despite the decoherence problem, of which I am well aware. Besides, Plaga has an experiment that is waiting to be tried that would prove other universes - http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9510007. Time will tell, but I think history is on my side.- Original Message - From: "Patrick Leahy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: EverythingList Subject: Re: Sociological approach Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 19:50:15 +0100 (BST)QM is a well-defined theory. Like any theory it could be proved  wrong by future experiments. My point is that R. Miller's  suggestions would definitely constitute a replacement of QM by  something different. So would aet.radal's (?) suggestion of  information tunnelling between macroscopic branches. The crucial  point, which is not taught in introductory QM classes, is the  theory of Quantum decoherence, for which see the wikipedia article  and associated references (e.g. the Zurek quant-ph/0306072).   This shows that according to QM, the decay time for quantum  decoherence is astonishingly fast if the product ((position  shift)^2 * mass * temperature) is much bigger than the order of a  single atom at room temperature. Moreover, the theory has been  confirmed experimentally in some cases.   Since coherence decays exponentially, after say 100 decay times  there is essentially no chance of observing interference phenomena,  which is the *only* way we can demonstrate the existence of other  branches. "No chance" meaning not once in the history of the  universe to date.   No existing animal is small enough or cold enough to participate  directly in quantum interference effects (i.e. to perceptibly  inhabit different micro-branches simultaneously), hence my claim  that your "behaviour system", whatever it is, must be in the  fully-decohered regime.   I have to backpedal some though, because by definition an  intelligent quantum computer would be in this regime (in practice,  by being very cold). I certainly don't want to imply that this goal  is known to be impossible.   NB: I'm in some terminological difficulty because I personally  *define* different branches of the wave function by the property of  being fully decoherent. Hence reference to "micro-branches" or  "micro-histories" for cases where you *can* get interference.   Paddy Leahy   ==  Dr J. P. Leahy, University of Manchester,  Jodrell Bank Observatory, School of Physics  Astronomy,  Macclesfield, Cheshire SK11 9DL, UK  Tel - +44 1477 572636, Fax - +44 1477 571618 

-- 
___Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

RE: Sociological approach

[aet.radal ssg]

"See http://decoherence.de "? It was good for a laugh, not much else.- Original Message - From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "Everything-List" <EVERYTHING-LIST@ESKIMO.COM>Subject: RE: Sociological approach Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 22:02:48 -  -Original Message-   From: rmiller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 5:40 PM   To: Patrick Leahy   Cc: aet.radal ssg; EverythingList; Giu1i0 Pri5c0   Subject: Re: Sociological approach  ...   More to the point, if you happen to know why the mere act of   measurement--even at a distance-- "induces" a probability collapse, I'd   love to hear it.   Measurements are just interactions that project onto "pointer spaces" we're  interested in. There's nothing physically different from any other  interaction.  See http://decoherence.de/   Brent Meeker 

-- 
___Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

RE: Sociological approach

[aet.radal ssg]

It was "contemptuous" of the information on decoherence, which is what popped up, when I clicked on the link. In particular the Julian Barbouresque "timelessness" prattle, "there are no particles", "there are no quantum jumps", etc. which seems far outside the definition of "decoherence". When I see such bold statements without explanation, I laugh. It doesn't really make wanna look further. But that was just an observer moment in the timeless space of Platonia. It wasn't even the same me that's typing this reply, which isn't the same me that began it, which isn't the same me that'll type...- Original Message -From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "Everything-List" <EVERYTHING-LIST@ESKIMO.COM>Subject: RE: Sociological approachDate: Tue, 24 May 2005 14:06:52 -

That's a rather contemptous evaluation of a website thatreports on the work of some very good physicist, e.g. Zeh, Joos, Kim, and Tegmark. Do you have any substantive comment? Did you read any of the papers?

Brent Meeker

-Original Message-From: aet.radal ssg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 7:49 PMTo: everything-list@eskimo.comSubject: RE: Sociological approach
"See http://decoherence.de "? It was good for a laugh, not much else.- Original Message - From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "Everything-List" <EVERYTHING-LIST@ESKIMO.COM>Subject: RE: Sociological approach Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 22:02:48 -  -Original Message-   From: rmiller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 5:40 PM   To: Patrick Leahy   Cc: aet.radal ssg; EverythingList; Giu1i0 Pri5c0   Subject: Re: Sociological approach  ...   More to the point, if you happen to know why the mere act of   measurement--even at a distance-- "induces" a probability collapse, I'd   love to hear it.   Measurements are just interactions that project onto "pointer spaces" we're  interested in. There's nothing physically different from any other  interaction.  See http://decoherence.de/   Brent Meeker -- 
___Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.comhttp://www.mail.com/?sr=signup


-- 
___Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

[aet.radal ssg]

- Original Message - From: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 18:36:51 -0400   "aet.radal ssg" wrote:From: "Jesse Mazer"   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], everything-list@eskimo.com   Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality   Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 14:48:17 -0400  Generally, unasked-for attempts at armchair psychology to explain   the motivations of another poster on an internet forum, like the   comment that someone "just wants to hear themself talk", are   justly considered flames and tend to have the effect of derailing   productive discussion. I indicated that it wasn't a flame and just an observation. You   later prove me right.   My point was that the *type* of comment you made is generally  considered a flame merely because of its form, regardless of  whether your intent was to provoke insult or whether you just saw  it as making an observation. It just isn't very respectful to  speculate about people's hidden motives for making a particular  argument, however flawed, nor does doing so tend to further  productive debate about the actual content of the argument, which  is why ad hominems are usually frowned upon.but hey, this list is all about   rambling speculations about half-formed ideas that probably won't   pan out to anything, you could just as easily level the same   accusation against anyone here.   snip
  If it's not going to pan out anyway, then it's pretty   meaningless. If it's "rambling" it's fairly incoherent, and if   the ideas are half-formed then what's the point to begin with?   99% of brainstorms don't pan out to anything, and brainstorms by  definition are usually half-formed, but all interesting new ideas  were at one point just half-formed brainstorms too. Perhaps I  should have left out "rambling", I only meant a sort of informal,  conversational way of presenting a new speculation.   Jesse 
Clearly, the method and definition of brainstorming that you're accustomed to is different than mine. The "half-formed idea" is what initiates the brainstorm for me, which is fully formed when the storm is over, ie. the ground is parched and in need of rain, the storm comes and when it's over, the ground is wet and crops can grow. Sorry, I just couldn't think of a snappy computer metaphor, being as I'm from the 1930's, as I have been told.

-- 
___Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

RE: Plaga

[aet.radal ssg]

You're welcome, Lee.

- Original Message - 
From: Lee Corbin 
To: everything-list@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: Plaga 
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 22:04:19 -0700 

 
 I could not find who suggested Plaga's paper recently, but 
 thanks to whoever it was. Whether Plaga is right or wrong, 
 his introductory remarks and general presentation are 
 simply superb. 
 
 There is even the very noteworthy (or humorous, I can't decide) 
 sentence which reads Independent of what one thinks about the 
 MWI a priori, this is also a very systematic way to make 
 experimental progress in the question of the interpretation 
 of QM, because in the MWI the predictions for any conceivable 
 experiment are free from philosophical subtleties...(!) 
 
 Lee 
 
 P.S. Thanks also to Saibal: 
 
  Plaga's paper has been published: 
 
  Proposal for an experimental test of the 
  many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics 
 
 http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9510/9510007.pdf 
 
 
 Found.Phys. 27 (1997) 559 
 
 arXiv: quant-ph/9510007 
 
  -Original Message- 
  From: Hal Finney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 5:51 PM 
  To: everything-list@eskimo.com 
  Subject: Re: Plaga 
  
  We discussed Plaga's paper back in June, 2002. I reported some skeptical 
  analysis of the paper by John Baez of sci.physics fame, at 
  http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m3686.html . I also gave some 
  reasons of my own why arbitrary inter-universe quantum communication 
  should be impossible. 
  
  Hal Finney 

-- 
___
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

[aet.radal ssg]

You're assuming that Einstein came up with those ideas through brainstorming. You're the one that called the ideas discussed here often as "half-formed". The problem Iused to have (I'm too busy to even give darn anymore) is when ideas are put out that don't seem to any thought behind them, prior to being offered. Like mystill unanswered question to Saibal about how people whoaren't "really" there but exist in Nash's headcan still be considered real in "our universe". That's what I'mtalking about. That's a fully formed idea with absolutely no basis in the objective world that was just put out there like it meant something, when in fact it's ridiculous.I asked simply what he meant by it, to see howpossibly he could defend such a statement, and got nothing. Par for the course, I'm sure.- Original Message - From: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 12:29:13 -0400   aet.radal ssg wrote:Clearly, the method and definition of brainstorming that you're   accustomed to is different than mine. The "half-formed idea" is   what initiates the brainstorm for me, which is fully formed when   the storm is over, ie. the ground is parched and in need of   rain, the storm comes and when it's over, the ground is wet and   crops can grow. Sorry, I just couldn't think of a snappy computer   metaphor, being as I'm from the 1930's, as I have been told   But does this mean you think no one should discuss ideas that are  not fully developed? To use my earlier example, do you think  Einstein should have kept his mouth shut about ideas like the  equivalence principle and curved space until he had the full  equations of general relativity worked out, and that if he did try  to discuss such half-finished ideas with anyone it would be because  he just liked to hear himself talk?   Jesse 

-- 
___Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

[aet.radal ssg]

Thanks for the repost. As far as the suicide paradox goes, I'd argue that it's not a paradox. Regardless of how he measures it, if there is a possible alternative, then that alternative exits in a parallel world. The outcome is inconsequential. I see no difference between that and the Schroedinger's Cat example.- Original Message - From: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "aet.radal ssg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM... Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 19:02:19 +0200   The original posting about this dates back from the beginning of  this list. I just  invoked this in this thread to argue why one should consider observer moments  (identical ones considered as the same) as fundamental concepts.   The suicide paradox I was referring to is just Tegmark's thought  experiment where the  experimenter measures the spin of a particle. If it is down he is  instantly killed, he  survives if it is up. Then he argues that according to the MWI the  experimenter should  always measure that the spin is up, because that's the only branch in which he  survives.   Saibal   Quoting "aet.radal ssg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:For some reason I didn't get the original post about the suicide paradox,   so if someone could resend it, sans any "everything" computer lingo, I   would appreciate it.   The subject of thethread - "Many Pasts? - Not according to QM" taken on   its face seems false,at leastfrom the standard MWI model. If you have   parallel worlds you have parallel pasts. In fact, that's why MWI is   supposed to be the solution to time travel paradoxes. Take an arbitrary   moment, when a measurement, or any other trigger, causes a decoherence,   move forward in time from that moment and look back - you have parallel   pasts that begin from the point of decoherence. - Original   Message - From: "Saibal Mitra" To: everything-list@eskimo.com   Subject: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM... Date: Wed, 25 May   2005 01:24:23 +0200  - Oorspronkelijk bericht -Van: "Patrick Leahy"  Aan:  Verzonden: Wednesday, May 18,   2005 05:57 PM  Onderwerp: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...   Of course, many of you (maybe all) may be defining pasts from   an   information-theoretic point of view, i.e. by identifying   all   observer-moments in the multiverse which are equivalent   as perceived by   the observer; in which case the above point is quite irrelevant. (But   you   still have to distinguish the different branches to find the total   measure   for each OM).   This is indeed my position. I   prefer to define an observer moment as the  information needed   to generate an observer. According to the   ''everything''  hypothesis (I've just seen that you don't   subscibe this) an observer   moment  defines its own universe. But this universe is very   complex and therefore  must have a very low measure. It is thus far more likely that the   observer  finds himself embedded in a low complexity universe.  One of the arguments in favor of the observer moment picture   is that it  solves Tegmark's quantum suicide paradox. If you   start with a set of all  possible observer moments on which a   measure is defined (which can be  calculated in principle using   the laws of physics), then the paradox   never  arises. At any moment you can think of yourself as being   randomly drawn   from  the set of all possible observer moments. The observer   moment who has  survived the suicide experiment time after time   after time has a very   very  very low measure.Even if one assumes only a single   universe described by the MWI, one has   to  consider simulations of other universes. Virtual observers   living in such   a  simulated universe will perceive their world as real. The measure of such  embedded universes will probably decay exponentialy with   complexitySaibal --   ___   Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup  --  _  Nu 12 maanden gratis Live Eredivisievoetbal bij 20 Mb ADSL voor maar  EUR 39,95 per maand. Bestel op www.versatel.nl/voetbal 

-- 
___Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Re: Plaga

[aet.radal ssg]

Ha, ha.

- Original Message - 
From: Saibal Mitra 
To: everything-list@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: Plaga 
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 18:50:01 +0200 

 
 Bruno was quoting another Aet from a parallel world :) 
 
 
 
 Quoting Eugen Leitl : 
 
  
  If you expect to be quoted correctly, stop posting HTML-only. 
  
  On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 08:45:34AM -0500, aet.radal ssg wrote: 
   HEY! BRUNO - I, (aet) didn't say that. Someone else did. I was 
  quoting them. If you're going to quote somebody, I suggest you get it 
  right.

- Original Message - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
  
To: aet.radal ssg 
  
Subject: Re: Plaga 
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 
  20:40:21 +0200 

 
 
 Le 25-mai-05, à 17:59, 
  aet.radal ssg a écrit : 
 
  From the initial page from 
  the included link to the archive: I'm 
  no physicist so I 
  don't know for sure that these implications 
  would 
 
   follow, but I am very doubtful that interworld communication is 
  consistent 
  with the basics of quantum mechanics.  The 
  fact that this paper has not 
  been published in peer reviewed 
  journals in 7 years indicates that it 
  probably doesn't work. 
  
 
 Ooh... you should not make inferences like that. I 
  could give 
 you 10,000 reasons for not publishing. But I have not 
  the time 
 because I have a deadline today! 
 
 I red 
  Plaga's paper. It is extremely interesting. It belongs to the 
 
  family of Weinberg's result. Some hoped that a slight 
 
  delinearisation of QM would explain the collapse. Reasoning a-la 
 
  Weinberg Plaga shows that it is the contrary which happens. Not 
 
  only we keep the MW but they became more real in some sense. It 
 
  shows the MWI is stable for slight variation of the SWE. this 
 
  confirms MWI in a deeper way. It shows quantum non linearity 
 
  contradicts thermodynamics! This is a powerful argument in favor of 
  
 both pure linear QM and MWI. 
 
 (Good for me, it 
  shows nature confirms the lobian machine's 
 inability to observe 
  kestrels and starlings when they look enough 
 closely to 
  themselves) 
 
 Bruno 
 
 
  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ 


--  
  
___
Sign-up 
  for Ads Free at Mail.com

 href=http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/payment/adtracking.cgi?bannercode=adsfreejump01;
  
  target=_blankhttp://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

   

  -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 
  __ 
  ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 
  8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE 
  
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 _ 
 Nu 12 maanden gratis Live Eredivisievoetbal bij 20 Mb ADSL voor maar 
 EUR 39,95 per maand. Bestel op www.versatel.nl/voetbal 

-- 
___
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

[aet.radal ssg]

Nice try, Danny, but as usual what I thought was a simple and direct concept was completely missed, qat least in the beginning(see what I mean Lee?).
The key issue was the comment that despite the fact that the people in his brain weren't real, that they could still be considered real in our universe. Your response deals with "those people are real in the sense that his brain is devoting processing power to creating the mental image of the individual, and everything related to this individual's personality", which supports an hypothesis that I shared with Lee privately - that people who are completely immersed in one particular communication style and iconography will default to that style when addressed with a different one, despite its complete inability to accurately express what needs to be communicated. 
As usual on this list, that communication style is biased heavily toward computer technology. So instead of a subjective vs objective argument, which is where Saibal's idea really falls (along with the one that Stathis dodged), the first concept out of the box from you is a qualitative defense of how real Nash's friends were because of the "processing power" his brain was devoting to creating them. Sounds like you're talking about a Pentium chip or something, never mind that the amount of power that his brain is using is irrelevent. If he hallucinated that he saw one obscure figure for a split second and never saw it again, that obscure figurewould be no more real in "our universe" than his hallucinated friends were.
However, you do finally get around to "Therefore the person is real to at least one first person perspective, but is not currently real to any third person perspective." which takes us right back to my original question to Saibal, which was how come he said that they *were* real in "our universe"? The key phrase being "our universe" which means the objective reality that we can all agree upon typically because of shared and agreed upon observations which would exclude subjective hallucinations. 
As usual, the basic, straight forward questions go unaddressed in favor of the usualbanter, but that's par for the course here. I'm just playing through.
"It is not impossible to conceive of future devices that could display thoughts on a screen, or even materialize the thought (for you Trekkies), making the person real even to the third person perspective."
Funny you should mention that - that's part of what I'm working on, 1930s style, of course.----- Original Message -From: "danny mayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "aet.radal ssg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortalityDate: Thu, 26 May 2005 19:43:52 -0400I'll answer your question (at the risk of incurring your wrath): those people are real in the sense that his brain is devoting processing power to creating the mental image of the individual, and everything related to this individual's personality. So even though the person in his head isn't nearly as substantive or complex as a person in the "real" world, information processing has been devoted to creating this "person", who has a real appearance and personality and behavior to at least one observer. Therefore the person is real to at least one first person perspective, but is not currently real to any third person perspective. It is not impossible to conceive of future devices that could display thoughts on a screen, or even materialize the thought (for you Trekkies), making the person real even to the third person perspective.Danny aet.radal ssg wrote:
You're assuming that Einstein came up with those ideas through brainstorming. You're the one that called the ideas discussed here often as "half-formed". The problem Iused to have (I'm too busy to even give darn anymore) is when ideas are put out that don't seem to any thought behind them, prior to being offered. Like mystill unanswered question to Saibal about how people whoaren't "really" there but exist in Nash's headcan still be considered real in "our universe". That's what I'mtalking about. That's a fully formed idea with absolutely no basis in the objective world that was just put out there like it meant something, when in fact it's ridiculous.I asked simply what he meant by it, to see howpossibly he could defend such a statement, and got nothing. Par for the course, I'm sure.- Original Message - From: "Jesse Mazer" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 12:29:13 -0400   aet.radal ssg wrote:Clearly, the method and definition of brainstorming that you're   accustomed to is different than mine. The "half-formed idea" is   what initiates the brainstorm for me, which is fully formed when   the storm is over, ie. the ground is parched and in need of   

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

[aet.radal ssg]

Forgive any typos...

- Original Message - 
From: Jesse Mazer 
To: everything-list@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality 
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 20:05:49 -0400 

 
 aet.radal ssg wrote: 
 
  You're assuming that Einstein came up with those ideas through 
  brainstorming. 
 
 To me, brainstorming just means any creative attempt to come up 
 with new tentative speculations about solutions to a problem. 

Then like I said, you and I have different definitions for brainstorming. 
Mine is specific whereas yours seems arbitray as it includes any creative 
attempt to come up with new tenative speculations about solutions to a 
problem. To each his own. 


Since Einstein's ideas cannot possibly have been anything but tentative 
 and speculative before the theory of general relativity was worked 
 out, then of course he came up with them through brainstorming. How 
 else would he have come up with them, logical deductions from a set 
 of axioms whose truth was totally certain? Divine revelation? 

Perhaps he did, since your definition is so all inconclusive of any attempt at 
creative thought. Since I never met the man, nor have read any accounts that 
document how he did his creative thinking that I can accurtately reference 
right now, I don't have an opinion one way of the other.

 
  You're the one that called the ideas discussed here often as 
  half-formed. 
 
 Yes, and I would define any idea that has not been made into a 
 fully-worked out, complete theory as half-formed. 

And...so what's your point?

Thus, until 
 Einstein worked out the full tensor equations of general 
 relativity, his ideas were half-formed, by definition. Perhaps you 
 woud define the term half-formed differently, but that's all I 
 meant by that. 
 

I think we would agree on the definition of half-formed. I'm just not making 
any assumptions on how Einstein did his work or comparing it to what passes for 
brainstorming on the list...like you are.

  The problem I used to have (I'm too busy to even give darn 
  anymore) is when ideas are put out that don't seem to any 
  thought behind them, prior to being offered. 
 
 What if the person has thought about them, but doesn't know 
 themselves whether they're any good, and wants feedback from 
 others? 

I have no problem with that. Never said I did.

Are you suggesting that before making any proposal, we 
 should always feel 100% certain in our own minds about whether the 
 proposal is correct or not? 


I usually don't suggest things...I come right out and say them. What I'm saying 
is that the posts that I usually have a problem with aren't asking for feedback 
from others because of a particular problem solving issue. They make these 
statements and they're usually just left there as if completely valid, or 
worse, expounded on by others in an even more inaccurate direction so that the 
original issue is never dealt with. I stated that before, I don't know how many 
times now.

  Like my still unanswered question to Saibal about how people 
  who aren't really there but exist in Nash's head can still be 
  considered real in our universe. 
 
 Maybe he didn't know the answer himself--is that a bad thing? 

He could have said so, is that a bad thing?

 Anyway, one could argue that simulations in someone's brain are 
 just as real as simulations on a computer--

Simulations on a computer aren't real, hence the term virtual. However, they 
are more real than a single mental cases' hallucinations.

do you think A.I. 
 shouldn't be considered real beings in our universe? 

They should be considered real technologies, not beings.

Of course, I 
 don't think the simulations of characters in a schizophrenic mind 
 or in a dream are really being simulated at anything like the same 
 level of detail as a genuine A.I. would be. 

OK.

 
  That's what I'm talking about. That's a fully formed idea with 
  absolutely no basis in the objective world that was just put out 
  there like it meant something, when in fact it's ridiculous. 
 
 Whatever gave you the idea that it was a fully formed idea? 

It was a statement. Close enough for rock 'n' roll.

Do you think Saibal believed he had a complete theory of how the brain 
 of a schizophrenic simulates the imaginary characters he interacts 
 with, for example? 

I don't make a practice of trying to guess what somebody thinks. I respond to 
what they say. But I'll say that your question, again, misses the point - 
Saibal's issue was that the imaginary people were still real in our universe. 
It doesn't matter whether Saibal knows how the brain works or understands 
schizophrenia or how much processing power was involved. The key issue is the 
moment that we're supposed to take whatever it is, that Nash's hallucinating, 
as being real in our universe. It goes right back to what Stathis was saying 
about temporal recognition impaired patients having some valid observation on 
how time works, which he also chose to leave

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

[aet.radal ssg]

Excuse me, has anyone seen a ball around here? It's got an infinity symbol on it. Oh, here itis. OK, just playing through...Fore! Original Message - From: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM... Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 14:29:07 +0200   - Oorspronkelijk bericht -  Van: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Aan: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;  Verzonden: Friday, May 27, 2005 01:44 AM  Onderwerp: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM... Saibal Mitra wrote: Quoting Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:On 25th May 2005 Saibal Mitra wrote: One of the arguments in favor of the observer moment picture is that  it solves Tegmark's quantum suicide paradox. If you start with a set of   all possible observer moments on which a measure is defined (which can be calculated in principle using the laws of physics), then the paradox never arises. At any moment you can think of yourself as being randomly  drawn from the set of all possible observer moments. The observer moment who has survived the suicide experiment time after time after time has a very very very low measure. I'm not sure what you mean by "the paradox never arises" here. You  have said in the past that although you initially believed in QTI, you later   realised that it could not possibly be true (sorry if I am misquoting you, this   is from memory). Or are you distinguishing between QTI and QS?   That's correct. In both QTI and QS one assumes conditional probabilities.   You just   throw away the branches in which you don't survive and then you conclude   that you   continue to survive into the infinitely far future (or after performing  an   arbitrary   large number of suicide experiments) with probability 1.  But if you use the a priori probability distribution then you see that  you   the measure   of versions of you that survive into the far future is almost zero. What does "the measure of versions of you that survive into the far future   is almost zero" actually mean? The measure of this particular version of  me   typing this email is practically zero, considering all the other versions  of   me and all the other objects in the multiverse. Another way of looking at  it   is that I am dead in a lot more places and times than I am alive. And yet   undeniably, here I am! Reality trumps probability every time.You have to consider the huge number of alternative states you could be in.   1) Consider an observer moment that has experienced a lot of things. These  experiences are encoded by n bits. Suppose that these experiences were more  or less random. Then we can conclude that there are 2^n OMs that all have a  probability proportional to 2^(-n). The probability that you are one of  these OMs isn't small at all!   2) Considering perforing n suicide experiments, each with 50% survival  probability. The n bits have registered the fact that you have survived the  n suicide experiments. The probability of experiencing that is 2^(-n). The  2^(n) -1 alternate states are all unconscious.So, even though each of the states in 1 is as likely as the single state in  2, the probability that you'll find yourself alive in 1 is vastly more  likely than in 2. This is actually similar to why you never see a mixture of  two gases spontaneously unmix. Even though all states are equally likely,  there are far fewer unmixed states than mixed ones.   Saibal 

-- 
___Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup