Hi Stephen,
My point is that time as a pointer that points to what exists and what not
(anymore or yet), cannot exist. You can indeed map the set of all such
pointers to the real line. I agree that relativity is inconsistent with
such an idea of time.
Saibal
Hi Saibal
Are you defining
of a new measurement is not pre-determined in either case.
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 08:06 PM
Subject: Re: Changing the past by forgetting
Saibal Mitra wrote:
If we consider measuring
I just send a posting to the FOR list about my article. I did not have the
time to reply to everyone on this list previously. Reading the old
discussion again, I think that it was suggested that the exact quantum
states matter, but they don't. It was only used to illustrate the thought
experiment
: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 07:27 PM
Subject: Re: Changing the past by forgetting
Accepting QM without collapse, I am not sure you can dump your memory
in the environment in any truly irreversible way.
Bruno
On 21 Apr 2009, at 15:22, Saibal Mitra wrote:
Yes, I agree, and that's then why
to the Saibal Mitra backtracking procedure (in
immortality discussions). I will take a further look on your paper.
If valid, it should work in the comp frame. Amnesia could lead you to
the original singularity, which could be a kind of blind spot of
universal consciousness, except that with comp
, 3/10/09, Saibal Mitra smi...@zeelandnet.nl wrote:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3825
I've written up a small article about the idea that you could end up in a
different sector of the multiverse by selective memory erasure. I had
written about that possibility a long time ago on this list, but now
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3825
I've written up a small article about the idea that you could end up in a
different sector of the multiverse by selective memory erasure. I had
written about that possibility a long time ago on this list, but now I've
made the argument more rigorous.
the size of the galaxy would still be me.
:)
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 03:24 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 02:22:23AM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote
Citeren nichomachus [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In the description of the quantum immortality gedanken experiment, a
physicist rigs an automatic rifle to a geiger counter to fire into him
upon the detection of an atomic decay event from a bit of radioactive
material. If the many worlds hypothesis is
Citeren nichomachus [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In the description of the quantum immortality gedanken experiment, a
physicist rigs an automatic rifle to a geiger counter to fire into him
upon the detection of an atomic decay event from a bit of radioactive
material. If the many worlds hypothesis is
The best thing you could do is to freeze your brain. I think that will
preserve the connections between the neurons, although the cells will be
destroyed.
This will make it easier for a future civilization to regenerate you
digitally
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1) looks better because there is no unambiguous definition of next.
However, I don't understand the shared by everyone part. Different
persons are different programs who cannot exactly represent the
observer moment of me.
As I see it, an observer moment is a snapshot of the universe taken by
in a universe described by the
Standard Model.
citeren Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Saibal Mitra wrote:
1) looks better because there is no unambiguous definition of next.
However, I don't understand the shared by everyone part. Different
persons are different programs who cannot exactly represent
If it feels bafflement and confusion, then surely it is conscious :)
An AI that takes information from books might experience similar qualia we
can experience. The AI will be programmed to do certain tasks and it must
thus have a notion of what it is doing is ok., not ok, or completely wrong.
The only connection I can think of is as follows. For any given religious
text there should exist a universe which best fits those text.
Saibal
- Original Message -
From: Wei Dai [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 11:55 PM
Subject:
The listserver was experiencing a lot of computer pain recently and
that prevented it from function normally :)
John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This is the 3rd time I send a 'test' to myself. I receive list-post on this
gmail address, but my mail does not show up, neither here nor on the
uncompoutable numbers, non countable sets etc. don't exist in first
order logic, see here:
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/logsys/low-skol.htm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ah the famous Juergen Schmidhuber! :)
Is the universe a computer. Well, if you define 'universe' to
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 5:47 AM
Subject: Re: Proof that QTI is false
Saibal Mitra wrote:
QTI in the way defined in this list contradicts quantum mechanics. The
observable
Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:31 AM
Subject: Re: Proof that QTI is false
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 11:58:14PM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote:
QTI in the way defined in this list contradicts quantum mechanics. The
observable part
I think I can prove that QTI as intepreted in this list is false, I'll post
the proof in a new thread.
The only version of QTI that makes sense to me is this:
All possible states exist out there in the multiverse. The observer
moments are timeless objects so, in a certain sense, QTI is true. But
QTI in the way defined in this list contradicts quantum mechanics. The
observable part of the universe can only be in a finite number of quantum
states. So, it can only harbor a finite number of observer moments or
experiences a person can have, see here for details:
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 08:28 AM
Subject: Re: Interested in thoughts on this excerpt from Martin Rees
The real problem is not just that it is a philosophical speculation,
it is that
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 09:23 AM
Subject: Re: A calculus of personal identity
Brent Meeker writes:
I think it is one of the most profound things about consciousness
that
.
Saibal
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 08:49 AM
Subject: Re: Teleportation thought experiment and UD+ASSA
Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't understand why you consider
I don't understand why you consider the measures of the programs that do the
simulations. The ''real'' measure should be derived from the algorithmic
complexity of the laws of physics that describe how the computers/brains
work. If you know for certain that a computation will be performed in this
ambience - in a wider view: of
the
totality, with interction back and forth with all the changes that go on?
Are you really interested only in the dance of those silly neurons?
John M
- Original Message -
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent
There must exist a ''high level'' program that specifies a person in terms
of qualia. These qualia are ultimately defined by the way neurons are
connected, but you could also think of persons in terms of the high-level
algorithm, instead of the ''machine language'' level algorithm specified by
From: Patrick Leahy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: Smullyan Shmullyan, give me a real example
On Fri, 12 May 2006, Saibal Mitra wrote:
Einstein seems to have believed in ''immortal observer moments''.
In a BBC
Einstein seems to have believed in ''immortal observer moments''.
In a BBC documentary about time it was mentioned that Einstein consoled a
friend whose son had died in a tragic accident by saying that relativity
suggests that the past and the future are as real as the present.
Saibal
This thread is still alive! It seems that information can't be erased in
this thread either :)
I think that information can't be erased because of the way time is (or
should be) defined. If you take the observer moment approach to the
multiverse, then you have to define a notion of time. That
-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 03:22 AM
Subject: Re: why can't we erase information?
Saibal Mitra wrote:
How would an observer know he is living in a universe in which
information
is lost? Information loss means that time evolution can map two different
initial states
- Original Message -
From: Wei Dai [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 01:46 AM
Subject: Re: why can't we erase information?
Saibal Mitra wrote:
How would an observer know he is living in a universe in which
information
is lost
How would an observer know he is living in a universe in which information
is lost? Information loss means that time evolution can map two different
initial states to the same final state. The observer in the final state thus
cannot know that information really has been lost.
- Original
heory must be highly falsifiable, otherwise
we are just going back to the days of Scholastic debates...
http://clublet.com/why?AngelsOnTheHeadsOfPins
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From:
Saibal Mitra
To: Stephen Paul King ; every
.
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 01:25 PM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
Le 15-déc.-05, à 03:04, Saibal Mitra a écrit :
To me
http://www.wolframscience.com/conference/2006/outline.html
- Original Message -
From: Johnathan Corgan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
In the multiverse,
splitting? It seems to me that in both
cases the relative measure of everything in the world stays the same, even
though in absolute terms there is double of everything.
Stathis Papaioannou
Saibal Mitra writes:
Correction, I seem to have misunderstood Statis' set up. If you really
create
the person not been
killed. Then his measure would have doubled. But because he is killed in one
of the two copies of Earth, his measure stays the same. In a quantum suicide
experiment his measure would be reduced by a factor two.
- Original Message -
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED
- Original Message -
From: Jonathan Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 05:49 AM
Subject: RE: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
Saibal wrote:
The answer must be a) because (and here I disagree with
Jesse), all that exists
Well, as you can see here:
http://cabtep5.cnea.gov.ar/particulas/daniel/curri/curreng.html
He isn't very experienced yet. I know of some experienced professors of
have made worse mistakes :)
So, what goes wrong? Well, you don't get an interference pattern at one end
even if you don't detect
Hal gives the correct explanation of what's going on. In general, all you
have to do to analyze the problem is to consider all contributions to a
particular state and add up the amplitudes. The absolute value squared of
the amplitude gives the probability, which may or may not contain an
There are a lot of experiments that have detected neutrinos and verified
their properties (which are completely different from photons).
- Original Message -
From: John Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Saibal Mitra' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, October 10
different from photons. I understand neutrinos travel at
the
speed of light. Only photons travel at the speed of light.
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 4:30 PM
To: John Ross; everything-list@eskimo.com
Faster than light effects lead to violations of causality. There are very
stringent experimental constraints against such effects.
- Original Message -
From: John Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Russell Standish' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'Stephen Paul King' [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Since we are discussing neutrinos, I thought it is fun to mention antropic
constraints on neutrino masses derived by Tegmark, see here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0304536
Anthropic predictions for neutrino masses
Authors: Max Tegmark (MIT), Alexander Vilenkin (Tufts), Levon Pogosian
(Tufts)
This means that beta decay proves your model wrong.
- Original Message -
From: John Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Stephen Paul King' [EMAIL PROTECTED];
everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 12:35 AM
Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea
Thanks for the paper relating to
with the rest of the (real) universe this
doesn't qualify as a ''bona fide'' simulation.
Saibal
- Original Message -
From: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 05:48 AM
Subject: Re: What Computationalism is and what
-
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 7:10 AM
Subject: Re: subjective reality
Hi Godfrey,
It is not clear to me why one would impose constraints such as locality
etc.
here
Hi Norman,
A TM in our universe can simulate you living in a virtual universe. If your
universe is described by the same laws of physics as ours, then most
physicists believe that the TM would have to work in a nonlocal way from
your perspective.
Is this a problem? I don't think so, because the
Hi Norman,
I have no idea why it received a dishonorable mention. It could be because
some physicists/cosmologists don't like anthropic reasoning.
- Original Message -
From: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508429
Tegmark's essay was not well received (perhaps Godfrey didn't like it? :-) )
How did it all begin?
Authors: Max Tegmark
Comments: 6 pages, 6 figs, essay for 2005 Young Scholars Competition in
honor of Charles Townes; received Dishonorable Mention
How did
this winter for the Colemanfest and he had the most fabulous
animations...
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 01:34:19
Godfrey Kurtz wrote
More specifically: I believe QM puts a big kabosh into any non-quantum
mechanistic view of the physical world. If you
don't get that, than maybe you don't get a lot of other things, Bruno.
Sorry if this sounds contemptuous. It is meant
to be.
There aren't many
Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:11:30 +0200
Subject: Re: subjective reality
Godfrey Kurtz wrote
More specifically: I believe QM puts a big kabosh into any
non-quantum
I agree with the notion of OMs as events in some suitably chosen space.
Observers are defined by the programs that generate them. If we identify
universes with programs then observers are just embedded universes. An
observer moment is just a qualia experienced by the observer, which is just
an
- Original Message -
From: Jonathan Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Russell Standish' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'EverythingList' everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 09:52 PM
Subject: Reference class (was dualism and the DA)
Russell Standish wrote:
(JC) If you want to
- Original Message -
From: Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 11:37 PM
Subject: Measure, Doomsday argument
Hi everyone,
I have some questions about measure...
As I understand the DA, it is based on conditionnal
You ca still create two identical systems starting from another system. E.g.
in stimulated emission two photons are created in the same state. Another
example is a Bose Einstein condensate, in which all the atoms are in the
same state.
Note that you can still teleport an unknown quantum state
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 05:26 PM
Subject: Re: more torture
Saibal Mitra writes:
Because no such thing as free will exists one has to consider three
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 08:06 AM
Subject: Re: more torture
Saibal Mitra writes:
Because no such thing as free will exists one has to consider three
different
Because no such thing as free will exists one has to consider three
different universes in which the three different choices are made. The three
universes will have comparable measures. The antropic factor of 10^100 will
then dominate and will cause the observer to find himself having made choice
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 02:43 AM
Subject: RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 06:41 PM
Subject: RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 10
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 02:23 PM
Subject: RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 02:23 PM
Subject: RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday
I think one should define an observer moment as the instantaneous
description of the human brain. I.e. the minimum amount of information you
need to simulate the brain of a observer. This description changes over time
due to interactions with the environment. Even if there were no interactions
- Original Message -
From: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 07:53 PM
Subject: RE: where did the Big Bang come from?
Norman Samish wrote:
Norman Samish wrote:
And where did this mysterious Big Bang
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 08:10 PM
Subject: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
To apply Wei's method, first we need to get serious about what is an OM.
We need a formal model and
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 05:00 AM
Subject: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...
Stephen Paul King writes:
I really do not want to be a stick-in-the-mud here, but what do we
base
the
.
Saibal
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 03:24 PM
Subject: Re: objections to QTI
Le 01-juin-05, à 15:00, Saibal Mitra a écrit
----- From: "Saibal Mitra" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To:
"Stathis Papaioannou" [EMAIL PROTECTED];
everything-list@eskimo.comSent: Monday, May 30, 2005 8:28
AMSubject: Re: objections to QTIHi Stathis,I think that your
example below was helpful to clarify the disagreement. You say that
Hi Stathis,
I think that your example below was helpful to clarify the disagreement.
You say that randomly sampling from all the files is not 'how real life
works'. However, if you did randomly sample from all the files the result
would not be different from the selective time ordered sampling
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Verzonden: Friday, May 27, 2005 01:44 AM
Onderwerp: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...
Saibal Mitra wrote:
Quoting Stathis Papaioannou
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
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
Plaga's paper has been published:
''Proposal for an experimental test of the
many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics''
Found.Phys. 27 (1997) 559
arXiv: quant-ph/9510007
-Defeat Spammers by
launching DDoS attacks on Spam-Websites:
A Hamel basis is a set H such that every element of the vector space is a
*unique* *finite* linear combination of elements in H.
This can be proven using Zorn's lemma, which is a direct consequence of the
Axiom of Choice. The idea of the proof is as follows. If you start with an H
that is too
Hi Patrick,
Welcome to the list!
When I was a student a friend told me about transfinite induction. While
ordinary induction allows you to generalize from n to n + 1 and thus to a
countable set, transfinite induction enables you to explore the continuum.
He didn't explain how it was done,
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Patrick Leahy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aan: everything-list@eskimo.com
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
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aan: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: everything everything-list@eskimo.com
Verzonden: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 11:39 AM
Onderwerp: Re: Implications of MWI
Le 01-mai-05, à 16:51, Saibal Mitra a écrit
I would have to read about these theories, but I think that it
doesn'tmatter if you work with complex measures.
Saibal
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van:
Ben Goertzel
Aan: Bruno Marchal ; Saibal Mitra
CC: everything-list@eskimo.com
Verzonden: Tuesday, May 03
Verzonden: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 03:47 PM
Onderwerp: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality
2 weeks ago Saibal Mitra wrote:
I don't think that the MW immortality is correct at all! In a certain
sense
we are
immortal, because the enseble of all possible worlds is a fixed
static
Russell Standish
wrote: With my TIME postulate, I say that a conscious
observer necessarily experiences a sequence of related observer moments
(or even a continuum of them). To argue that observer moments are
independent of each other is to argue the negation of TIME. With TIME,
the
If you accept that you can experience having been unconscious, then you also
have to accept that you can survive with memory loss in any branch.
This means that if you are faced with almost certain death, it is more
likely that you will find yourself alive in a completely different sector of
the
The MWI made me take the idea of multiple universes/multiple realities
serious. When I joined this list I believed that quantum suicide could work,
but I later found out that it cannot possibly work. I now believe that there
exists an ensemble of all possible mathematical
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: everything-list@eskimo.com
Verzonden: Sunday, May 01, 2005 07:30 PM
Onderwerp: Re: Memory erasure
You can turn this whole chain of logic around and make it an argument
against
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0504200
Quantum Behavior of Deterministic Systems with Information Loss. Path
Integral ApproachAuthors: M.
Blasone, P. Jizba,
H.
KleinertComments: 11 pages, RevTeXSubj-class: Quantum
Physics; Mathematical Physics
't Hooft's derivation of quantum from
I agree with Hal. The measure is doubled after copying. So, this is sort of
the reverse of a suicide experiment in which the measure decreases. If you
consider a doubling in which one of the copies doesn't survive then the
measure stays the same, while in suicide experiment it decreases.
Both
I more or less agree with Jesse. But I would say that the measure of
similarity should also be an absolute measure that multiplied with the
absolute measure defines a new effective absolute measure for a given
observer.
Given the absolute measure you can define effective conditional
There is another argument (also mentioned by Hal on this list some time ago)
that also suggests that the measure must decay faster than 2^(-program
length). This arguments involve the anthropic factor. The measure for an
observer to find himself in a universe is the product of an ''intrinsic''
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311059
Authors: Fotini
Markopoulou, Lee
Smolin
We provide a mechanism by which, from a background independent
model with no quantum mechanics, quantum theory arises in the same limit in
which spatial properties appear. Starting with an arbitrary abstract
Download the article free of charge here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0404156
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Pete Carlton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 07:09 PM
Onderwerp: Ambjørn et al.
Of possible general interest -
J. Ambjørn J.
The properties of ordinary matterare strongly
constrained by the anthropic principle. In soome cases you can even calculate
non trivial things. E.g. the anthropic reasoning was used by Hoyle
to prove the existence of an energy level of the carbon-12 nucleus.
Dark matter seems to be much
Maybe we should look at deterministic theories, such as:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0104219
John M wrote:
Yet it would be refreshing to approach the concept from another side
(another framework), - maybe a new one??
PROTECTED]
Aan: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: Saturday, August 14, 2004 04:51 PM
Onderwerp: Re: Quantum Rebel - complementarity
Thanks! Maybe even further?
John M
- Original Message -
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Russell Standish [EMAIL
Questioning whether the speed of light has changed within a certain class of
theories is nonsense and this is not an opinion but an elementary
mathematical fact. Of course, one may e.g. question whether photons are
massive and whether this mass has changed, leading to a (wavelength
dependent)
I agree. If the photon did behave in an erratic way you would be able to say
that the photon is behaving erratic and not the laws of physics that make
your instruments work. But in this hypothetical case you would use some
other way to relate time to space. This relation also has to involve a
Unfortunately, sensationalists articles that are completely baloney appear
in most scientific journals from time to time.
Nature published an article claiming that if the fine structure conswtant is
changing, as suggested by some astronomical observations, then this change
must be due to a change
That's correct, but such theories can be mapped to
theories with constant C. Ultimately only dimensionless constants matter,
all other constants are just conversion factors.
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aan: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL
1 - 100 of 194 matches
Mail list logo
