Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
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 of being the OM at N. This I find confusing. How is there memory associated with an obserever moment? Is it equivocation on "memory"? As an experience, remembering something takes much longer than what I would call "a moment". It may involve a sequence images, words, and emotions. Of course in a materialist model of the world the memories are coded in the physical configuration of your brain, even when not being experienced; but an analysis that takes OM's as fundamental can't refer to that kind of memories. It is true that human cognition, memories etc. are not instantaneous. There are two ways to keep the OM concept useful despite this. One is to extend each "moment" so that it encompasses, for example, the minimum period of awareness (probably a substantial fraction of a second), or any interval of arbitrary length, such as the waking hours of a day. This still allows one to think about questions involving continuity of personal identity where multiple copies or near-copies of a given mind are running simultaneously, the interval of the OMs under consideration being tailored to the particular situation. But giving OMs duration seems to invite other incoherence. It means that time cannot be understood as a sequence of timeless OMs. On the other hand it solves more than just the memory problem; if OMs have duration, then the durations could overlap and thus define "worlds" and "personal identity" - i.e. provide the accessiblity relation. The other way is to bite the bullet and allow instantaneous part-cognitions. A memory is then only associated with an OM during the act of remembering, and each instantaneous OM covers only an instant of that act, in the same way a frame in a film covers only an instant of the action depicted by the series of frames. I have difficultly with an "instant of cognition". A film records an instant of spatial relations, but how is one to understand a non-extensive, instant of cognition - certainly not by simple introspection. But it seems that getting an explanation of the world via introspection is why OMs were appealing in the first place. Brent Meeker
Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
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 of being the OM at N. This I find confusing. How is there memory associated with an obserever moment? Is it equivocation on "memory"? As an experience, remembering something takes much longer than what I would call "a moment". It may involve a sequence images, words, and emotions. Of course in a materialist model of the world the memories are coded in the physical configuration of your brain, even when not being experienced; but an analysis that takes OM's as fundamental can't refer to that kind of memories. It is true that human cognition, memories etc. are not instantaneous. There are two ways to keep the OM concept useful despite this. One is to extend each "moment" so that it encompasses, for example, the minimum period of awareness (probably a substantial fraction of a second), or any interval of arbitrary length, such as the waking hours of a day. This still allows one to think about questions involving continuity of personal identity where multiple copies or near-copies of a given mind are running simultaneously, the interval of the OMs under consideration being tailored to the particular situation. The other way is to bite the bullet and allow instantaneous part-cognitions. A memory is then only associated with an OM during the act of remembering, and each instantaneous OM covers only an instant of that act, in the same way a frame in a film covers only an instant of the action depicted by the series of frames. Stathis Papaioannou _ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
I agree with everything Jesse says here. Stathis Papaioannou 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 here? http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg04692.html _ Start something musical - 15 free ninemsn Music downloads! http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=667&referral=HotmailTaglineNov&URL=http://www.ninemsn.com.au/startsomething
RE: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
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 states. Of course, the > > > universe we experience seems to be real to us while > > > alternative universes, or past or future states of this > > > universe are not being experienced by us. > > > > > > > > > So, you must think of yourself at any time as being randomly > > > sampled from the set of all possible observer moments. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure how this works. Suppose I consider my state > now at time > as > > a random sample of all observer moments. Now, after having > typed this > > sentence, I consider my state at time . Is > this also a > random > > sample on all observer moments? I can do the same at now > , and > so-on. > > It seems very unlikely that 3 random samples would coincide > so closely. So > > in what sense are these states randomly sampled? > > It's a bit like symmetry breaking. You have an ensemble of > all possible > observer moment, but each observer moment can only experience > its own state. > So, the OM samples itself. > > 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 of being the OM at N. Subjectively the OMs experience > time evolution, > even though the plenitude itself doesn't have a time evolution at the > fundamental level. I understand all that, but I still don't see in what sense these OM's are randomly sampled. Here's a related question. The DDA insists that we must all consider ourselves random observers on our reference class, whatever it is (class of all observers is standard). Now, if I am a random observer, and you (Saibal) are a random observer, what are the odds that two observers selected randomly from the class of all observers would be discoursing on the same mailing list? We can only conclude that one of us can not be random, but must have been selected by the other. But did I select you, or did you select me? If we select each other, the randomness issue is not resolved. Another possibility is, I suppose, to simply *define* randomness as observer self-selection. Perhaps observer self-selection is the only truly random phenomenon in the universe (everything else appearing random is merely unpredictable). But it is then a purely a first-person phenomenon, and I can not consider anything else in the universe (including *your* observer moments) as random. Jonathan Colvin
Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
Saibal Mitra wrote: - Original Message - From: "Jonathan Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 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 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 states. Of course, the universe we experience seems to be real to us while alternative universes, or past or future states of this universe are not being experienced by us. So, you must think of yourself at any time as being randomly sampled from the set of all possible observer moments. I'm not sure how this works. Suppose I consider my state now at time as a random sample of all observer moments. Now, after having typed this sentence, I consider my state at time . Is this also a random sample on all observer moments? I can do the same at now , and so-on. It seems very unlikely that 3 random samples would coincide so closely. So in what sense are these states randomly sampled? It's a bit like symmetry breaking. You have an ensemble of all possible observer moment, but each observer moment can only experience its own state. So, the OM samples itself. 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 of being the OM at N. This I find confusing. How is there memory associated with an obserever moment? Is it equivocation on "memory"? As an experience, remembering something takes much longer than what I would call "a moment". It may involve a sequence images, words, and emotions. Of course in a materialist model of the world the memories are coded in the physical configuration of your brain, even when not being experienced; but an analysis that takes OM's as fundamental can't refer to that kind of memories. Brent Meeker
Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
- Original Message - From: "Jonathan Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 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 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 states. Of course, the > > universe we experience seems to be real to us while > > alternative universes, or past or future states of this > > universe are not being experienced by us. > > > > > > So, you must think of yourself at any time as being randomly > > sampled from the set of all possible observer moments. > > > > I'm not sure how this works. Suppose I consider my state now at time as > a random sample of all observer moments. Now, after having typed this > sentence, I consider my state at time . Is this also a random > sample on all observer moments? I can do the same at now , and so-on. > It seems very unlikely that 3 random samples would coincide so closely. So > in what sense are these states randomly sampled? It's a bit like symmetry breaking. You have an ensemble of all possible observer moment, but each observer moment can only experience its own state. So, the OM samples itself. 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 of being the OM at N. Subjectively the OMs experience time evolution, even though the plenitude itself doesn't have a time evolution at the fundamental level. Although it is a bit strange to think about time evolution in this way, it is necessary to resolve paradoxes you get when contemplating doubling and suicide experiments. It is precisely in these cases that our naive notion of time evolution breaks down. Saibal
RE: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
Jonathan Colvin writes: 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 states. Of course, the > universe we experience seems to be real to us while > alternative universes, or past or future states of this > universe are not being experienced by us. > > > So, you must think of yourself at any time as being randomly > sampled from the set of all possible observer moments. I'm not sure how this works. Suppose I consider my state now at time as a random sample of all observer moments. Now, after having typed this sentence, I consider my state at time . Is this also a random sample on all observer moments? I can do the same at now , and so-on. It seems very unlikely that 3 random samples would coincide so closely. So in what sense are these states randomly sampled? They would be randomly sampled if, godlike, some third person pulled them out of the ensemble of all possible observer moments - and in that case, it certainly would be surprising if these three turned up one after the other. However, from the first person perspective, they don't need to be "sampled" at all. It suffices that these three OMs simply exist somewhere in the plenitude, and - by definition - there will also exist an observer who experiences (at least) these three states. The situation is slightly different if there is more than one OM that would fit a particular state. For example, if there are two distinct OMs that would fit into the sequence as , then at that point the number of observers doubles. For the single observer just before the duplication, this would be seen as a 1/2 probability of experiencing one or the other state. Stathis Papaioannou _ View 1000s of pictures, profiles and more now at Lavalife http://lavalife.com.au
Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
Saibal Mitra writes: 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 states. Of course, the universe we experience seems to be real to us while alternative universes, or past or future states of this universe are not being experienced by us. So, you must think of yourself at any time as being randomly sampled from the set of all possible observer moments. To get to answer b) you have to redefine your identity so that experiencing having done the experiment becomes a necessary part of your identity. But this is cheating because you wouldn't say that if ''death'' were replaced by a partial memory erasure such that the experience of having done the experiment were wiped out form your memory. > 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 live) = Pr(I die) = 0.5 > > (b) Pr(I live) = 1, Pr(I die) = 0 > > (c) Pr(I live) = 0, Pr(I die) = 1 > > Even on this list, there are people who might say (a) above is the case > rather than (b) or (c). > > Bruno Marchal replies: > Are you sure? > > 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? I agree that "all that exists is an ensemble of isolated observer moments" is a good way to look at it. In fact, that is why I think the best "objective" answer is (c) rather than (b): each OM exists only transiently. However, as a human, what I am interested in is the experience (one could say, the illusion) of living my life a step at a time which results from the existence of certain special OMs in the great and mixed up ensemble of all possible OMs. Now, where I disagree with you is in the method and meaning of sampling from this ensemble. It is literally true, in a sense, that my "next experience" is more likely to be an OM of relatively high measure: a moment from my life in any month other than November 2005; the experiences of a Chinese rather than an Australian; death, the content-poor OM of inanimate matter. If a third person were randomly pulling OMs from the plenitude and setting them down in order, that is indeed what he would get. Amazingly, however, when *I* am doing the sampling, my "next experience" always turns out to be... well, something that we all recognise as a next experience. I always seem to find that rare OM amongst all the other other ones where I turn into a turnip, or I'm suddenly 95 years old, or all the other countless possibilities. I don't even have to go looking for it: if it's out there at all, I'll find it. If there are several candidate "next moments", including ones where I have suffered partial memory loss, which one I (that is, one version of me) experience will seem to be determined probabilistically. And if there are no candidate next moments at all, then I die. I have used "I" rather loosely and without defining it because there is no objective truth of the matter when considering personal identity. I may be physically completely different (i.e. comprised of different matter) today than I was a year ago, and my mental state and memories may only be approximately similar to what they were then, but I am sure I am still the same person, and that is what counts. If I had undergone a head injury or a dementing illness in the past year, I would be even less similar now than I was then, but I would probably still think I was the same person unless I was really far gone, in which case it probably would be the same as if I had died. These are matters millions of people deal with every day: you don't have to bring up multiple copies in other worlds. Stathis Papaioannou _ Start something musical - 15 free ninemsn Music downloads! http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=667&referral=HotmailTaglineNov&URL=http://www.ninemsn.com.au/startsomething
