Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 05-dc.-05, 02:46, Saibal Mitra a crit :
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 about
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.
This is simply a consequence of
using the absolute measure.
Ah ? I am not sure this
Le 03-déc.-05, à 11:12, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 01-déc.-05, à 07:17, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Why does an OM need to contain so much information to link it to
other OMs making up a person? [the complete message is below].
I am not sure I understand.
Hi Stathis,
Hi Bruno,
I replied to the first part of your post earlier, but it took a bit
more time to digest the rest. For what it is worth, I have included my
thinking out loud below.
Thanks for replying, and thanks for authorizing me to comment online.
Mhh I know
Bruno Marchal wrote:
...
What could this mean in a real world example?
Take W as the set of places in Brussels. Take R to be accessible by
walking in a finite number of foot steps. Then each places at Brussels
is accessible from itself, giving that you can access it with zero
steps, or
Le 05-déc.-05, à 22:49, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 03:58:20PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Well at least this isn't a problem of translation. But I still have
difficulty in understanding why Pp=Bp -B-p should be translated
into
English as to bet on p (or for that
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 03:58:20PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Well at least this isn't a problem of translation. But I still have
difficulty in understanding why Pp=Bp -B-p should be translated into
English as to bet on p (or for that matter pourquoi on devrait
le traduire par a parier a
I'm perhaps missing something here. In a no-collapse interpretation of QM,
doesn't everything double every moment? So, if only one of the doubled
versions of a person is annihilated, doesn't this mean the probability of
survival is 1?
Although the plenitude is timeless, containing all
Hi Saibal,
Le Samedi 3 Décembre 2005 02:15, Saibal Mitra a écrit :
Correction, I seem to have misunderstood Statis' set up. If you really
create a new world and then create and kill the person there then the
probability of survival is 1. This is different from quantum mechanical
branch
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 03:39:58PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Observation is implicitly defined here by measurement capable of
selecting alternatives on which we are able to bet (or to gamble ?).
The french word is parier.
Well at least this isn't a problem of translation. But I still
many outcomes, all leading to death except one, the probability of
experiencing that branch is very small.
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum
many outcomes, all leading to death except one, the probability of
experiencing that branch is very small.
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum
]
To: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 02:25 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
The answer must be a) because (and here I disagree with Jesse), all that
exists
Saibal Mitra wrote:
Correction, I seem to have misunderstood Statis' set up. If you really
create a new world and then create and kill the person there then the
probability of survival is 1. This is different from quantum mechanical
branch splitting.
To see this, consider first what would
Why does an OM need to contain so much information to link it to other OMs
making up a person? I certainly don't spend every waking moment reminding
myself of who I am, let alone going over my entire past history, and I still
think all my thoughts are my thoughts. I don't think that the fact
- 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
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes:
[quoting Saibal Mitra]
There exists an observer moment representing you at N seconds, at N + 4
seconds and at all possible other states. They all ''just exist'' in the
plenitude, as Stathis wrote. The OM representing you at N + 4 has the
memory
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I was thinking of people who accept some ensemble theory such as MWI, but
don't believe in QTI. I must admit, I find it difficult to understand how
even a dualist might justify (a) as being correct. Would anyone care to
help?
What do you think of my argument
Le Samedi 26 Novembre 2005 18:47, Jesse Mazer a écrit :
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I was thinking of people who accept some ensemble theory such as MWI, but
don't believe in QTI. I must admit, I find it difficult to understand how
even a dualist might justify (a) as being correct. Would anyone
Saibal wrote:
The answer must be a) because (and here I disagree with
Jesse), all that exists is an ensemble of isolated observer
moments. The future, the past, alternative histories, etc.
they all exist in a symmetrical way. It don't see how some
states can be more ''real'' than other
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou writes:
If on the basis of a coin toss the world splits, and in one branch I
am instantaneously killed while in the other I continue living, there
are several possible ways this might be interpreted from the 1st
person viewpoint:
(a) Pr(I
Please disregard previous post. The b and c cases were inverted.
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou writes:
If on the basis of a coin toss the world splits, and in one branch I
am instantaneously killed while in the other I continue living, there
are several possible ways this
Bruno Marchal writes:
If on the basis of a coin toss the world splits, and in one branch I am
instantaneously killed while in the other I continue living, there are
several possible ways this might be interpreted from the 1st person
viewpoint:
(a) Pr(I live) = Pr(I die) = 0.5
I hope
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 04:22:58PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Now observation and knowledge are defined in the logics of
self-reference, i.e. by transformation of G and G*, and so are each
multiplied by two. Actually and amazingly for the knower (the first
person) G and G* give the same
: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Everything-List List everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
snip
Well, actually I hope it will gives the qubits.
I am not contesting the Everett-Hartle
Le 15-nov.-05, à 10:56, Brian Scurfield a écrit :
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It has often been pointed out on this list that universes are those
parts of the multiverse down which information flows. So Harry
Potter universes are not in fact universes.
Le 28-oct.-05, à 17:54, GottferDamnt a écrit (for-list):
Hi,
I would like talk about this quote from an old topic:
This is a rather shocking conclusion. We are conscious here and
now because our (computational state) belongs to aleph_1 (or
2^aleph_0 for those who doesn't want to rely on
, 1 Nov 2005 13:27:27 +0100
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality (was Re: Quantum Suicide)
Le 28-oct.-05, à 17:54, GottferDamnt a écrit (for-list):
Hi,
I would like talk about this quote from an old topic:
This is a rather shocking conclusion. We are conscious here and
now because our
I should have said a countable set of countable histories.
Tom
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 15:05:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality (was Re: Quantum Suicide)
Bruno,
So why
All this talk of quantum immortality seems like anthropocentric wishful
thinking to me.
You are a process. All physical objects are best understood as slow
processes.
A life process is a very complex physical pattern, which is an
arrangement of matter and energy in space-time,
that has
At 10:14 12/06/03 -0400, Charles wrote:
SNIP
What is this thing called consciousness, anyway?
It could be the unconscious, instinctive, automatic, abductive
inference of some consistent sets of neighborhood-histories.
It is related to some high level description of ourselves
relatively to
Yes, you can save the ``conventional´´ quantum immortality theorem by
extending the definition of a person, but is a person with an astronomical
amount of data stored in his brain plus all of my memory really me? I would
say not.
I would go even further: The person I was when I was 3 years old
201 - 232 of 232 matches
Mail list logo
