On 5/24/2010 6:08 AM, John Mikes wrote:
Stathis,
you seemed bored: you jumped into assigning a bit more to my text than
it really contained:
_/...saying that we can know nothing about it at all.../
_
what I did not say. I spoke about a 'hypothetical' functioning of the
world (read the/
On 24 May 2010 23:08, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Stathis,
you seemed bored: you jumped into assigning a bit more to my text than it
really contained:
...saying that we can know nothing about it at all...
what I did not say. I spoke about a 'hypothetical' functioning of the world
On 23 May 2010 05:26, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Stathis:
how about a wording version of your remark:
you may as well claim that we should not make up an infinite universe
story that would boggle the human mind?
I am not against the 'exist', because any idea does exist (at least in
2010/5/23 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com
Stathis,
I hate to go into a 'fault-finding' trip, but what gives you the idea that
the universe works in any way WE, stupid consequences THINK OF in any
fashion?
The universe (???) or anything we translate into universes in our limited
minds - MAY
Hi Alex, hi Quentin,
On 20 May 2010, at 15:19, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Hi,
2010/5/20 awak mustata_a...@yahoo.com
1. Hello everyone! I'm Alex. I'm a civil engineer with an avid
passion for
Popular Science books. I'm not a scientist, nor a native English
speaker, so
please excuse my
On 5/23/2010 9:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Alex, hi Quentin,
On 20 May 2010, at 15:19, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Hi,
2010/5/20 awak mustata_a...@yahoo.com mailto:mustata_a...@yahoo.com
1. Hello everyone! I'm Alex. I'm a civil engineer with an avid
passion for
Popular Science
Stathis:
how about a wording version of your remark:
you may as well claim that we should not make up an infinite universe
story that would boggle the human mind?
I am not against the 'exist', because any idea does exist (at least in the
mind of the initiator).
John M
On 5/20/10, Stathis
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
On 20/05/2010, at 4:12 PM, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote:
I may have this all
2010/5/21 m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net
- Original Message -
*From:* Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Sent:* Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:35 PM
*Subject:* Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
On 20/05/2010, at 4:12 PM, m.a
2010/5/21 m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net
- Original Message -
*From:* Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Sent:* Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:35 PM
*Subject:* Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
Why in the first case you call
- Original Message -
From: Quentin Anciaux
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
2010/5/21 m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net
- Original Message -
From: Stathis
On 5/21/2010 5:58 PM, m.a. wrote:
- Original Message -
*From:* Quentin Anciaux mailto:allco...@gmail.com
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Sent:* Friday, May 21, 2010 9:19 AM
*Subject:* Re: Quantum Immortality
Hi,
2010/5/20 awak mustata_a...@yahoo.com
1. Hello everyone! I'm Alex. I'm a civil engineer with an avid passion for
Popular Science books. I'm not a scientist, nor a native English speaker,
so
please excuse my possible inconsistencies in both Scientific logic or
English grammar. Again,
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
Hi,
2010/5/20 awak mustata_a...@yahoo.com
1. Hello everyone! I'm Alex. I'm a civil engineer with an avid passion for
Popular Science books
On 20/05/2010, at 4:12 PM, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote:
I may have this all wrong, but it seems to me that for there to be
umpteen trillion copies of a person there had to be umpteen trillion
(UT) copies of his parents. And only a relatively small sub-group of
those met and
2008/12/30 kla...@bkpsecurity.com kla...@bkpsecurity.com:
Lets assume, that Alice who believes in QI wants a certain probable
event to happen, for instance win 1,000,000 in a casino. Alice then
comes to a casino with a loaded gun and promises to herself, that she
will kill herself if she
kla...@bkpsecurity.com wrote:
If Quantum Immortality (QI) is true, then we can ask the question what
is the TYPICAL history for an immortal. The typical history (or the
typical time/space trajectory) would be the path most of the immortals
take (and remember that in QI all of us are
Why shouldn't a more natural process prevent Alice from doing this
experiment with the lottery? Something far more probable than winning the
million which does not let this quantum trick happen? This would be similar
to the reasoning you applied to the quantum suicide. It could be much more
The focus of my paper is on theories in principle fully describing universes
(or u-reality). The term 'logically possible' is intended to contrast with
'physically possible' and refers to descriptions (theories) being internally
non-contradictory (more in note 4 in my paper).
OK
Classical
On Apr 19, 3:46 pm, Günther Greindl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Dear Nichomachus,
decision. If she measures the particle's spin as positive, she will
elect to switch cases, and if she measures it with a negative spin she
will keep the one she has. This is because she wants to be sure that,
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 3:53 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law
Alastair Malcolm wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Günther Greindl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
.
.
Alastair argues
- Original Message -
From: Günther Greindl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law
Dear Nichomachus,
decision. If she measures the particle's spin as positive, she will
elect to switch cases
Alastair Malcolm wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Günther Greindl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law
Dear Nichomachus,
decision. If she measures the particle's spin as positive, she
nichomachus wrote:
On Apr 17, 1:21 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying that the second law is verified in each of all
branches of the (quantum) multiverse?
I'm not saying
Those branches exist even if the experiment is not set
up. This follows necessarily from the MWI. Pick any date in history
that you like. There must exist fluke branches that have experienced
unlikely histories since that time. The example I mentioned previously
was no atomic decay
On Apr 19, 11:51 am, Telmo Menezes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Those branches exist even if the experiment is not set
up. This follows necessarily from the MWI. Pick any date in history
that you like. There must exist fluke branches that have experienced
unlikely histories since that
How would it work? The point of the suicider experiement is that the
suicider is able to prove to himself the reality of MWI by forcing
himself to experience only an absurdly low probability set of events.
Thus, he demonstrates to the few versions of himself who remain the
existence of
Dear Nichomachus,
decision. If she measures the particle's spin as positive, she will
elect to switch cases, and if she measures it with a negative spin she
will keep the one she has. This is because she wants to be sure that,
having gotten to this point in the game, there will be at least
nichomachus wrote:
On Apr 19, 2:17 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
nichomachus wrote:
On Apr 17, 1:21 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying that the second law is
Günther Greindl wrote:
Dear Nichomachus,
decision. If she measures the particle's spin as positive, she will
elect to switch cases, and if she measures it with a negative spin she
will keep the one she has. This is because she wants to be sure that,
having gotten to this point in the game,
On Apr 19, 4:26 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
nichomachus wrote:
On Apr 19, 11:51 am, Telmo Menezes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Those branches exist even if the experiment is not set
up. This follows necessarily from the MWI. Pick any date in history
that you like. There
nichomachus wrote:
On Apr 19, 4:26 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
nichomachus wrote:
On Apr 19, 11:51 am, Telmo Menezes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Those branches exist even if the experiment is not set
up. This follows necessarily from the MWI. Pick any date in
Hi John,
Le 17-avr.-08, à 16:48, John Mikes a écrit :
Bruno, ashamed, because I decided many times not to barge into topics
I do not understand and now I misuse your (and the list's) patience
again:
you use statistical. - verified in MOST branches.
I think my view is not too far away:
Le 17-avr.-08, à 19:45, Telmo Menezes a écrit :
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Are you saying that the second law is verified in each of all
branches of the (quantum) multiverse?
I'm not saying that.
OK. Sorry.
I would say the second law
Le 17-avr.-08, à 18:21, Günther Greindl a écrit :
David Deutsch argues in Fabric of Reality that only the Multiverse
conserves quantity (not single branches). The rest is probabilistic
stuff (see Bruno's post)
Yes. And I think Deutsch has the most correct interpretation of
Everett's theory
entropy is increasing as normal
because of the preparation and maintenance of the apparatus needed for
the experiment.
Do you think this makes sense?
I am not sure I understand. I do agree with Brent Meker's comment
though. If you agree with him, take his answer as mine (hope
On Apr 16, 11:16 am, Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HI,
2008/4/16, nichomachus [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Apr 16, 4:54 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 16-avr.-08, à 03:24, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 02:22:23AM +0200, Saibal Mitra
On first blush, it would seem to be irrelevant to the fact that there
are possible histories in which the second law is not found to hold.
All the atom and rifle apparatus does is eliminate the living subject
in those branches where the decay occurs, leaving the subject alive in
only the unlikely
On Apr 17, 1:21 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying that the second law is verified in each of all
branches of the (quantum) multiverse?
I'm not saying that.
I would
On 17/04/2008, Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You cannot experience death if you define death by the absolute end of
your conscious experience. Since you can't be conscious if you're dead
nor knowing it (which would require consciousness) by definition,
death is not a first
I would like to argue that in setting this experiment, energy is being
expended to prevent the increase in entropy, albeit not in an obvious
way.
It is a trivial observation that systems may be devised that prevent
increases in entropy by paying energy costs. One example is an ice
cube in the
It's not so much the input of energy, it's the production of more entropy
where the energy is taken from.
On 17/04/2008, Telmo Menezes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to argue that in setting this experiment, energy is being
expended to prevent the increase in entropy, albeit not in an
Yes, you're right. Still I think my argument holds. The production of
the rifle, bullet and geiger counter system plus the geiger counter
operation should produce more than enough entropy to compensate for
the atom not decaying.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Michael Rosefield
[EMAIL
Are you saying that the second law is verified in each of all
branches of the (quantum) multiverse? I would say the second law is
statistical, and is verified in most branches. In the MWI applied to
quantum field it seems to me that there can be branches with an
arbitrarily high number of
Bruno, ashamed, because I decided many times not to barge into topics I do
not understand and now I misuse your (and the list's) patience again:
you use statistical. - verified in MOST branches.
I think my view is not too far away: statistical in my dictionary means a
choice-set of cases selected
Hi,
David Deutsch argues in Fabric of Reality that only the Multiverse
conserves quantity (not single branches). The rest is probabilistic
stuff (see Bruno's post)
Cheers,
Günther
Telmo Menezes wrote:
Yes, you're right. Still I think my argument holds. The production of
the rifle, bullet
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying that the second law is verified in each of all
branches of the (quantum) multiverse?
I'm not saying that.
I would say the second law is
statistical, and is verified in most branches. In the MWI
Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying that the second law is verified in each of all
branches of the (quantum) multiverse?
I'm not saying that.
I would say the second law is
statistical, and is verified
To pull a fatuous idea from where the sun doth not shine, what if energy is
merely moving 'between universes'; it is conserved just because of
statistical balance.
On 17/04/2008, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure what source of photon creation you have in mind, but QFT
It's conserved because we require that the Hamiltonian not be explicitly
time dependent (we want our laws to apply equally at all times); that
and Noether's theorem imply conservation of 4-momentum.
Brent Meeker
Michael Rosefield wrote:
To pull a fatuous idea from where the sun doth not
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 06:45:59PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I'm just arguing that the experiment with the rifle and the geiger
counter does not imply any second law anomaly. Yes, you are forcing
your consciousness to move to states where the atom never decays,
but if you consider the
Le 16-avr.-08, à 03:24, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 02:22:23AM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote:
First off, how is it that the MWI does not imply
quantum immortality?
MWI is just quantum mechanics without the wavefunction collapse
postulate.
This then implies that
On Apr 16, 4:54 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 16-avr.-08, à 03:24, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 02:22:23AM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote:
First off, how is it that the MWI does not imply
quantum immortality?
MWI is just quantum mechanics without the
HI,
2008/4/16, nichomachus [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Apr 16, 4:54 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 16-avr.-08, à 03:24, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 02:22:23AM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote:
First off, how is it that the MWI does not imply
quantum
Even though I believe in QI, I try not to be too blase with my life due to
the guilt I'd feel for all sorrow I'd cause my friends family in the
worlds I died in.
I also think the mathematical laws underlying the universes we are in are
also subject to anthropic multiplicity; we don't just filter
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:24:12PM -0700, nichomachus wrote:
Hi, Russell,
Surely the framework of the Many Worlds interpretation would say that
the likelyhood of measuring a quantum observable in state A rather
than B reflects the number of histories in which the observable is
measured as
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 02:22:23AM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote:
First off, how is it that the MWI does not imply
quantum immortality?
MWI is just quantum mechanics without the wavefunction collapse postulate.
This then implies that after a measurement your wavefuntion will be in a
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
No, it just means no-one's put enough stress on the 2nd Law yet :)
Besides, it's not so much a law as a guideline. Well, a strong statistical
tendency
On 15/04/2008, nichomachus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the description of the quantum immortality gedanken experiment, a
physicist rigs
On 15/04/2008, Michael Rosefield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, it just means no-one's put enough stress on the 2nd Law yet :)
Besides, it's not so much a law as a guideline. Well, a strong statistical
tendency
As Michael pointed out, the 2nd law is a statistical law, which says
that a
Further to this, to say that the 2nd law is falsified, we'd have to
have circumstances where the less likely outcome ocurred more
frequently than the more often. (ie entropy decreases more often than
it increases). But this begs the question of what we mean by
likelihood of outcome, if not
On Apr 14, 9:21 pm, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Further to this, to say that the 2nd law is falsified, we'd have to
have circumstances where the less likely outcome ocurred more
frequently than the more often. (ie entropy decreases more often than
it increases). But this begs
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
There are many ways to escape from this scenario. If you are Tookie, you
will find yourself shunted into increasingly less likely situations: not
being caught in the first place; being caught but not being found
guilty; being sentenced to death but getting off on
Saibal Mitra wrote:
To me it seems that the notion of ''successor'' has to break down at cases
where the observer can die. The Tookies that are the most similar to the
Tookie who got executed are the ones who got clemency. There is no objective
reason why these Tookies should be excluded as
Le 16-déc.-05, à 16:49, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
It may be easy to find logical flaws in the above credo, but I maintain that it is so deeply ingrained in each of us that it would be very difficult to overcome, except perhaps on the intellectual level.
OK but that would not make sense.
.
- 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
Saibal Mitra writes:
To me it seems that the notion of ''successor'' has to break down at cases
where the observer can die. The Tookies that are the most similar to the
Tookie who got executed are the ones who got clemency. There is no
objective
reason why these Tookies should be excluded as
)?
See you tomorrow,
Bruno
- 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
Le 14-déc.-05, à 01:34, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
In the multiverse, only other people end up in dead ends. Although
from a third person perspective every entity in the multiverse could
be said to exist only transiently because at every point of an
entity's history we can say that there
Le Vendredi 16 Décembre 2005 02:18, vous avez écrit :
This is true, but you can only experience being one person at a time.
In fact I'd say I can only experience being me ;) If I experienced being
another person I wouldn't be I.
When
I contemplate what may happen to me tomorrow, I have to
Le 14-déc.-05, à 01:34, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
In the multiverse, only other people end up in dead ends. Although
from a third person perspective every entity in the multiverse could
be said to exist only transiently because at every point of an
entity's history we can say that there
Quentin Anciaux writes:
Hi Jesse,
unless you are willing to say that white rabbit universes have a
lower absolute measure than stable-laws-of-nature universes, you have no
justification for expecting that you are unlikely to experience such
events
in your future.
Jesse
You have no
Le 13-déc.-05, à 18:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
In this context I'm talking about your comp multiverse. Yes, our
common sense experience sees history as one way. But this is the
problem. Your requirement for LASE is that the accessibility relation
is symmetrical.
I don't require
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 03:18:16PM -0800, George Levy wrote:
The only way to talk meaningfully about measure is when you can compare
two situations from a third person point of view: for example, if you
witness someone die from a freak event you could conclude that he
continued living in
- 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
Le 13-déc.-05, à 02:07, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
From the third person perspective, the annihilation of the 10^100
copies
could be seen as 10^100 dead ends. (In fact, when I originally
proposed this experiment, Hal Finney thought it represented the
ultimate in mass murder.) If I were
Le 12-déc.-05, à 19:37, George Levy a écrit :
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
In addition to the above arguments, consider the problem from the
point of view of the subject. If multiple copies of a person are
created and run in parallel for a period, what difference does this
make to his
Le 12-déc.-05, à 18:07, Tom ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) a écrit :
In response to Stathis' thought experiment, to speak of an experiment
being set up in a certain way is to base probabilities on an
irrelevant subset of the whole, at least if the multiverse
hypothesis is true. In the Plenitude,
Stathis wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
In response to Stathis' thought experiment, to speak of an experiment
being
set up in a certain way is to base probabilities on an irrelevant
subset of the whole, at least if the multiverse hypothesis is true.
In the
Plenitude, there are an additional
Bruno Marchal wrote:
we are conscious only because we belong to a continuum of infinite
never ending stories ...
...that's what the lobian machine's guardian angel G* says about
that: true and strictly unbelievable.
Bruno
Since you agree that the number of histories is on a continuum, you
The reason why you don't buy lottery tickets could just as easily be
explained in a single universe.
I short-changed my argument. I should've said, The reason why you
don't buy lottery tickets can only be explained in a single universe.
Tom Caylor
Tom Caylor wrote:
The reason why you don't buy lottery tickets could just as easily be
explained in a single universe.
I short-changed my argument. I should've said, The reason why you don't
buy lottery tickets can only be explained in a single universe.
Tom Caylor
If you don't
Jesse wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
The reason why you don't buy lottery tickets could just as easily be
explained in a single universe.
I short-changed my argument. I should've said, The reason why you
don't buy lottery tickets can only be explained in a single
universe.
Tom Caylor
The white rabbit problem is a problem only for multiverse believers.
By the way, thanks for the reference to rabbits. It caused a
rabbit-repellent ad to appear in the margin of the archive. It is
lemon-scented (and another one is fox-scented!) and this will be more
pleasant for me than
Tom Caylor writes:
It seems to me that as soon as we talk about measure, it is equivalent to
talking about one (physical!) universe. This is similar to your George
Levy's taking the ratio of the lengths of two line segments. You don't
need a multiverse to do that. I think that talking of
In the multiverse, only other people end up in dead ends. Although from a
third person perspective every entity in the multiverse could be said to
exist only transiently because at every point of an entity's history we can
say that there sprouts a dead end branch of zero extent, from a first
George Levy:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
we are conscious only because we belong to a continuum of infinite never
ending stories ...
...that's what the lobian machine's guardian angel G* says about that:
true and strictly unbelievable.
Bruno
Since you agree that the number of histories is on a
George Levy wrote:
Jesse Mazer wrote:
George Levy:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
we are conscious only because we belong to a continuum of infinite
never ending stories ...
...that's what the lobian machine's guardian angel G* says about
that: true and strictly unbelievable.
Bruno
Since you
Le 11-déc.-05, à 11:58, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
You find yourself alone in a room with a light that alternates
red/green with a period of one minute. A letter in the room informs
you that every other minute, 10^100 copies of you are created and run
in parallel for one minute, then shut
Bruno wrote:
Le 11-déc.-05, à 11:58, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
You find yourself alone in a room with a light that alternates
red/green with a period of one minute. A letter in the room informs
you that every other minute, 10^100 copies of you are created and run
in parallel for one
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
In addition to the above arguments, consider the problem
from the point of view of the subject. If multiple copies of a person
are created and run in parallel for a period, what difference does this
make to his experience? It seems to me that there is no test or
From the third person perspective, the annihilation of the 10^100 copies
could be seen as 10^100 dead ends. (In fact, when I originally proposed this
experiment, Hal Finney thought it represented the ultimate in mass murder.)
If I were one of the 10^100, however, I wouldn't be worried in the
Tom Caylor writes:
In response to Stathis' thought experiment, to speak of an experiment being
set up in a certain way is to base probabilities on an irrelevant
subset of the whole, at least if the multiverse hypothesis is true. In the
Plenitude, there are an additional 10^100 copies still
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 10-déc.-05, à 13:24, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
In addition to the above arguments, consider the problem from the point of
view of the subject. If multiple copies of a person are created and run in
parallel for a period, what difference does this make to his
George Levy writes:
Hi Quentin, Stathis, Bruno
It all depends how you see the plenitude, OMs and the branching. Is
consciousness like a traveller in a network of roads traversing the
plenitude, some roads branching some roads merging?
If yes then you could have several independent
Le 10-déc.-05, à 13:24, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
In addition to the above arguments, consider the problem from the
point of view of the subject. If multiple copies of a person are
created and run in parallel for a period, what difference does this
make to his experience? It seems to me
Le 09-déc.-05, à 22:44, George Levy a écrit :
The crux of the matter is the concept of indistinguishability: whether you consider two identical persons (OMs) occupying two identical universes the same person (point on the road). It is clear that if you consider the problem from the information
Le 08-déc.-05, à 22:21, George Levy a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 05-déc.-05, à 02:46, Saibal Mitra a écrit :
I still think that if you double everything and then annihilate only the
doubled person, the probability will be 1.
Actually I agree with this.
So far we have been talking
Hi Quentin, Stathis, Bruno
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Hi Georges,
if you start from OMs as basic, then a branch is a set of OMs (only
"consistent"/ordered set ?). Then it means a branch is unique. Some part of
different branches could overlap, but as I don't understand what could be an
101 - 200 of 232 matches
Mail list logo
