On Jun 9, 11:17 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 08 Jun 2012, at 20:52, Nick Prince wrote:
On Jun 8, 8:45 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Nick,
This is a bit unclear. How is U and D distinguished from the (absence
of) first person view?
I've drawn
mean by backtracking?
Bruno
On 08 Jun 2012, at 01:11, Nick Prince wrote:
I’ve just read the following paper :
http://istvanaranyosi.net/resources/Should%20we%20fear%20qt
%20final.pdf
which argues that it is possible to avoid the descent into decrepitude
that seems to follow from
I’ve just read the following paper :
http://istvanaranyosi.net/resources/Should%20we%20fear%20qt%20final.pdf
which argues that it is possible to avoid the descent into decrepitude
that seems to follow from the quantum theory of immortality (QTI).
Aranyosi argues that this is plausible on the
Oops - so the new branching diagrams came out wrong. OK they should
read
U to U or D or C and C to C or U.
On Jun 8, 12:11 am, Nick Prince nickmag.pri...@gmail.com wrote:
I’ve just read the following paper :
http://istvanaranyosi.net/resources/Should%20we%20fear%20qt%20final.pdf
which
On Nov 15, 12:11 am, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
In principle, yes. What you are talking about is quantum erasure. It
should even be possible to do it without forgetting the current
worldline (in which case one is really finding a consistent
continuation of the current
On Oct 27, 12:10 am, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 04:00:56PM -0700, Nick Prince wrote:
QTI, Cul de sacs and differentiation
I’m trying to get a picture of how David Deutsch’s idea of
differentiation works – especially in relation to QTI.
I'm
On 1 November 2011 21:07, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 01:07:31PM -0700, Nick Prince wrote:
This is where I am coming from:
I accept decoherence as the mechanism for suppressing interference
between universes and that this happens very quickly
[BM]
I don't think I understand it any better than you do. But ISTM we need a
quantum theory
of consciousness in order to write eqns like (3) above. In the standard
theory it implies
that there is some experience of both system states at the same time. A
change of basis
changes the
Hi Nick,
OK, Cul de sac's are terminations of a first person point of view.
Unless we believe in disembodied minds then there is some kind of
physical system with some kind of wave function that is associated with
the 'body' of the observer. Here we are considering cats but that does
On Oct 31, 5:30 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/30/2011 5:13 PM, Nick Prince wrote:
On Oct 30, 8:56 pm, Russell Standishli...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
My point about the unitary evolution was that the clicking of the
Geiger counter is not a unitary process - and until
[RS]
The question is - when did the cat become aware of which way the
electron was spinning as it left the Stern-Gerlach apparatus? I would
say it was when it discovered the vial didn't smash, and it was still alive.
The other question, from the DD perspective, is when did the sphere of
On Oct 30, 8:56 pm, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
My point about the unitary evolution was that the clicking of the
Geiger counter is not a unitary process - and until you hear it, you remain in
superposition.
- Show quoted text -
I thought that in the everett
On Oct 29, 1:53 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 26, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Nick Prince nickmag.pri...@googlemail.com
wrote:
QTI, Cul de sacs and differentiation
I’m trying to get a picture of how David Deutsch’s idea of
differentiation works – especially
On Oct 29, 6:44 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 30, 2011, at 3:17 AM, Nick Prince nickmag.pri...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Maybe you are thinking of Tegmark level 1 or level 2 type multiverses
here, in which case I agree. What I was doing in my analysis
On Oct 29, 6:44 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 30, 2011, at 3:17 AM, Nick Prince nickmag.pri...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Maybe you are thinking of Tegmark level 1 or level 2 type multiverses
here, in which case I agree. What I was doing in my analysis
On Oct 27, 11:52 am, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Nick Prince
nickmag.pri...@googlemail.comwrote:
QTI, Cul de sacs and differentiation
I’m trying to get a picture of how David Deutsch’s idea of
differentiation
[NP]
Maybe you are thinking of Tegmark level 1 or level 2 type multiverses
here, in which case I agree. What I was doing in my analysis was
thinking about QM type 3 multiverses only. Let's pretend that these
are the only variety for the moment, then my analysis does indicate
that cul
Thanks Bruno for being so patient with me and taking the time to
carefully answer my queries.
Nick
On Oct 28, 3:42 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Oct 2011, at 01:56, Nick Prince wrote:
[BM]
The QTI, or the more general comp immortality, or arithmetical
immortality
[CW]
I can't help with that unfortunately. My own TOE explains why QM may
be a misinterpretation to begin with (even though the observations and
predictions of QM are of course valid).
[NP]
Ok thanks for your comments Craig. I would be interested in your
TOE. If you have explained it on this
[JR]
I think such cul de sacs exist only from third person perspectives.
E.g.,
the experimenter's view of what happens to the cat. When considering
the
perspective from the first person (cat) perspective, there are no cul
de
sacs for a much simpler reason: The cat might be mistaken, dreaming,
or
[SPK]
Are we sure that this ordering, at the level of the state vectors,
really matters? We are, after all, only considering observables that
mutually commute and thus ordering should be irrelevant.
[NP]
Hi Stephen. I stressed the order because it is how the cat perceives
events and
[BM]
The QTI, or the more general comp immortality, or arithmetical
immortality is a complex subject, if only because it depends on
what
you mean by you.
[NP]
Can you be more specific on this?
[BM]
Do you know Kripke semantic? A Kripke frame is just a set (of
elements
called worlds) with an
[SPK]
It seems to me that we have to take the environment of the system
into account, so we have to have a {environment in the equation, no?
From what I can tell, cul de sac's would have 3p consequences that
would have an effect on the distribution of branches. Maybe we should
[NP]
QTI, Cul de sacs and differentiation
By the end of the first evolution due to Msg, the infinite
bundle of universes has partitioned into two bundles i.e. one bundle
of universes that have a Z spin up electron moving upwards with a
neutral detector reading and an alive cat, and another bundle
QTI, Cul de sacs and differentiation
I’m trying to get a picture of how David Deutsch’s idea of
differentiation works – especially in relation to QTI. With a
standard treatment it looks as if there might be cul de sacs for a
dying cat. However I think I can see why this conclusion could be
On Apr 2, 11:21 pm, stephenk stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Nick,
On Apr 2, 7:22 am, Nick Prince nickmag.pri...@googlemail.com wrote:
Yes agreed. Also if timelike entanglements occurred there would be
less worry about conflict with relativity than there was originally
with spacelike
On Apr 4, 7:16 pm, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Nick Prince
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 1:55 PM
To: Everything List
Subject: Re: Is QTI false?
Yes Sheldrakes ideas are just the kind of thing I was thinking of. I
think that he looked
On Apr 2, 7:51 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Apr 2011, at 13:52, Nick Prince wrote:
On Apr 1, 6:33 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Nick,
On 31 Mar 2011, at 23:41, Nick Prince wrote:
Bruno wrote
With both QTI and COMP-TI we cannot go from being
On Apr 2, 12:08 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Nick Prince
nickmag.pri...@googlemail.com wrote:
Ok Stathis thanks for that but what about the consciousness of the
viking living in 200 AD. The NCDSC will require some pretty unusual
drive. These
memories could then be later picked up by a simulated entity by
appropriate tuning. It was a stab in the dark.
Best
Nick
On Apr 2, 1:59 am, stephenk stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On Apr 1, 7:38 pm, Nick Prince nickmag.pri...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Apr 1, 12:26 am, Stathis
On Apr 1, 6:33 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Nick,
On 31 Mar 2011, at 23:41, Nick Prince wrote:
Bruno wrote
With both QTI and COMP-TI we cannot go from being very old to being a
baby. We can may be get slowly younger and younger in a more
continuous way, by little
On Mar 31, 1:43 am, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 03:15:59PM -0700, Nick Prince wrote:
In Russell’s book there is a section on “Arguments against QTI”
And I want to put forward some issues arising from this.
It seems that (if MWI is true) we live
On Apr 1, 12:26 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Nick Prince
nickmag.pri...@googlemail.com wrote:
Stathis wrote
That we don't see extremely old people is consistent with QTI, since
from the third person perspective rare events
On Mar 31, 1:43 am, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
The observation that other people never seem to live beyond a certain
age is not evidence against the NCDSC. Only logical
impossibility can count. Even physical impossibility is insufficient,
because there is always the
Bruno wrote
With both QTI and COMP-TI we cannot go from being very old to being a
baby. We can may be get slowly younger and younger in a more
continuous way, by little backtracking. We always survive in the most
normal world compatible with our states. But some kind of jumps are
not
Stathis wrote
That we don't see extremely old people is consistent with QTI, since
from the third person perspective rare events such as living to a
great age happen only rarely. However, from the first person
perspective you will live to a great age, and this will happen in the
most
of such reincarnational transitions would be
interesting to speculate about since I see this as the only way out
for a QTI.
Nick Prince
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
of infinity! Aleph0, aleph1 etc. I don't know
if this is significant here.
Nick Prince
--
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Quantum-Immortality-considering-%22Passing-Out%22-tp28620760p28639048.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com
will not continue per se no matter what, the
consciousness of your future selves has value. And the more of them there
are (in terms of measure) the more value, because they do not share a single
consciousness even if they are all of the same type.
--- On Tue, 1/26/10, Nick Prince m
copies. Yet my
experience makes me feel that there is?
Best wishes
Nick Prince
--
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
keep on
until there was no consciousness left in some branch. I know that what
is actually going on during sleep is probably very uncertain but based
on this gradational assumption would you agree with my conclusions?
Best wishes
Nick Prince
--
You received this message because you
for both RSSA and ASSA but it would eventually decrease to zero for
ASSA when you died! With RSSA it could only decrease asymptotically
to zero, but never completly disappear.
Best wishes
Nick Prince
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
On Jan 19, 6:43 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2010/1/19 Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk:
Perhaps you misunderstood my reference to the use of copies. What I
meant was why they are considered as an indication of measure at the
beginning
Are you saying that you do not subscribe to differentiation?
Nick Prince
I'm not sure what you mean by differentiation, but I don't subscribe
to one theory or another - I just consider them. Above I was only
pointing out that there are theories (in fact the most common theory
On Jan 18, 2:11 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/1/18 Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk:
If you had to guess you would say that your present OM is a common
rather than a rare one, because you are more likely to be right.
However, knowledge trumps probability
On Jan 17, 11:51 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/1/17 Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk:
You can see I am struggling with these self sampling assumptions. I
just cannot get a handle on how to think about them.
The SSA is difficult to get one's head around
On Jan 15, 6:35 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/1/15 Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk:
1. Do you think dementia a cul de sac branch then (MWI or single
world?
There are branches where your mind gradually fades away to nothing.
However, there are other branches
On Jan 14, 9:51 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/1/14 Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk:
The ASSA proponents say that even though there are
thousand year old versions of you in the multiverse they are of very
low measure and you are therefore very unlikely
between a
physicalist or an observationalist TOE.
Best
Nick Prince
--
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
?
The RSSA, as I understand it would use the Born rule to indicate which
successive OM’s are possible and likely.
Why the ASSA is applicable to determine our birth OM I am also not
sure of either. I would be very grateful to anyone who can clarify
this for me.
Many thanks
Nick Prince
--
You received
then it must
be something and is there a simple analogy that can help me to grasp
it? I find I can always work out the technicalities better if I have
a road map or analogy to help.
Best wishes
Nick
On Jan 6, 5:12 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 06 Jan 2010, at 01:21, Nick Prince wrote
Thank you Stathis, That does make sense to me.
On Jan 5, 12:22 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/1/5 Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk:
Is this because you think of your stream of consciousness as somehow
like a reel of film? All the individual pictures could be cut
As I understand it the UD generates all possible programs and as it
generates each one it runs one step of it before generating the next.
Does that not mean that eventually it will generate the program which
is generating what we understand to be some observer moments for us at
this particular
On Jan 5, 6:59 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Nick Prince wrote:
Is this because you think of your stream of consciousness as somehow
like a reel of film? All the individual pictures could be cut from
the reel and laid out any which way but the implicit order is always
situation - do we pick out the
laws or do they pick us?. But I am still working my way through this
and and loads of other stuff, so I don't understand it yet.
Best
Nick
On Jan 5, 6:59 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Nick Prince wrote:
Is this because you think of your stream
On 03 Jan 2010, at 14:55, Nick Prince wrote:
--
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
for any critical
comments from you, Bruno (or anyone).
Many thanks
Nick
On Jan 3, 11:05 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/1/3 Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk:
HI Bruno
Thank you so much for your answers to my queries so far. I really
need to do some more thinking
Stathis wrote
Yes, but a critic could still say that no conscious observer could be
conjured up by a computation unless the computation is physically
implemented. At least at first glance that seems to be the case: the
brain is required for consciousness, since if the brain is destroyed
up). Sorry but I haven’t ordered any
books yet so I can’t look into them.
Is there an English translation of your Ph.D. thesis yet? Sorry but I
can’t do French. My thanks and best wishes.
Nick
On Dec 31 2009, 6:10 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 30 Dec 2009, at 17:51, Nick Prince
...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Dec 2009, at 18:13, Nick Prince wrote:
Ok so I have come up with an argument to try and convince myself of
step 8 but it still has some catches to it. If anyone sees that I am
using incorrect thinking at any time please correct me.
Misunderstanding means bad
numbers.
Best
Nick
On Dec 25, 2:56 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Nick, hi Quentin,
On 25 Dec 2009, at 04:13, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Nick Prince wrote
I can understand that numbers and arithmetic operations (as well as a
whole lot of other stuff) exist as some kind
to see if I can make some more
progress.
Thank you very much for your kind replies.
Happy Christmas
Nick
On Dec 24, 9:26 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 24 Dec 2009, at 02:13, Nick Prince wrote:
Thanks Bruno
I want to have a good think about your answers and also
was insightful to think over. If
anyone sees any other errors in my thinking then please do let me know
because I don't want to take anything on board that is wrong and has
been cleared up in the past.
Nick Prince
On Dec 23, 1:02 am, Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
On Dec 23, 12:55 am
On Dec 23, 2:15 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Nick,
On 23 Dec 2009, at 01:55, Nick Prince wrote:
My background is in mathematical physics but I am trying to read up a
bit of this new stuff as I go along. Thank you for being patient with
me.
However, I think you have
Hi Bruno
My background is in mathematical physics but I am trying to read up a
bit of this new stuff as I go along. Thank you for being patient with
me.
However, I think you have confirmed some things - let me know if any
of these is fundamentally wrong.
I want to put aside the platonic
On Dec 23, 12:55 am, Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
Hi Bruno
My background is in mathematical physics but I am trying to read up a
bit of this new stuff as I go along. Thank you for being patient with
me.
However, I think you have confirmed some things - let me know if any
No need for escape - some offenders manage to convince us they are good to
be let out - only to re offend. For some crimes this is manageable but for
others !!
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brent Meeker
Sent: 16
-
From: Norman Samish
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August
09, 2006 12:53 PM
Subject: Can we ever know
truth?
In a discussion about philosophy, Nick Prince said, If we are
living in a simulation. . .
To which John Mikes replied
to go beyond this because there is no data to support anything other than to
say the simulation argument is compelling.
Nick Prince
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Nyman
Sent: 08 August 2006 00:10
To: Everything
.
Nick Prince
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Nyman
Sent: 07 August 2006 00:16
To: Everything List
Subject: Re: The moral dimension of simulation
But your observation goes to the heart of my question. If we were
.
Nick Prince
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Nyman
Sent: 06 August 2006 19:43
To: Everything List
Subject: The moral dimension of simulation
I don't know whether these issues have been given an airing here, but
I have
freinds!!
Nick Prince
I would like to ask how decoherered branches of the multiverse can merge -
it must be possible as in a consistent histories approach but how is it
accounted for in the formalism of QM
Puzzled
Nick P
73 matches
Mail list logo
