Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
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 LASE. (I recall for the other: LASE is the modal formula p - BDp, its characteristic multiverse have a symmetrical accessibility relation) It is just the main formula in a modal propositional quantum physics. LASE is an empirical discovery of the physicist (as re-expressed by modal logicians). (I use LASE for: Little Abstract Schroedinger Equation). This implies that it has to be just as consistent to go backwards in history as forwards. You are going too much quickly here. Nobody said that we need to interpret the accessibility relation in a temporal way. LASE axiomatizes a relation of proximity among quantum states or quantum consistent histories, which can be seen in some block-multiverse. From what you say above about the natural numbers, it seems that the comp assumption of natural numbers contradicts this. Yes. And that explains why it takes me more than 20 years to resolve that apparent contradiction. But I do think like you that apparently there is a contradiction. The contradiction will disappear when we will take seriously the incompleteness phenomenon into account. Strangely enough perhaps. I'd appreciate [your summary]. As part of it, I think I would need an explanation of what you mean by physical universe. Fair enough. Actually this depends of the context. I promise to say more asap; 'cause I got a new wave of working duties here alas :( It seems to me that your belief in the process of verification, when you talk about verifying comp physics vs. quantum physics, is equivalent to a belief in a physical universe. I gave an argument that if comp is correct then the *appearance* of *observables* must be explained from the (mathematical) structure of the natural border of our (us = the hopefully lobian machines) ignorance (a psychological or theological predicate). The argument is mainly the UDA + the movie-graph, and the machine ignorance is just the collection of its possible consistent extensions. This is coherent with the RSSA measure-philosophy of many in this list. Then I show that indeed any sound lobian machine who introspects herself deeply enough will find those laws of observability. And, so we can test comp by comparing those lobian observability laws with the observability laws infered by observation of the empirical reality. Would we get a complete confirmation: this would entail a confirmation that the empirical laws emerge from the immaterial machine ignorance, not from a physical or substantial independent reality. If you want I believe in empiry, not in a necessary primitively physical base for that empiry. Well, assuming comp, I believe in a base which is necessarily not physicalist. Like Chaitin has also observed (and also from incompleteness) even arithmetical reality can only be known, in great part, by observation, experiment with numbers. Oops, must go now. Hope this helps a bit, but it will be clearer with the summary, I hope. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
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 a world with lower measure than yours. This is a third person point of view. However, from that person's point of view (first person), the freak event never happened and therefore he will consider his measure to be just as high as yours. George One can talk about relative measure between two observer moments connected via an accessibility relation from the first person. The computation of this relative measure (which will in fact be a probability distribution) is given by the Born rule. Absolute measure (which will be complex in general) is a pure 3rd person phenomenon, and not accessible to observer. I argue that the absolute measure can be identified with the magnitude and phase angle of the quantum mechanical statevector representing the observer moment. These quantities are usually considered unphysical, as they are inaccessible to the observer. Only relative phase angles can be measured. Such an identification (complex absolute measure with statefunction magnitude) appears to be a novel interpretation of QM ... Cheers -- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type application/pgp-signature. Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely ignore this attachment. A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile) Mathematics0425 253119 () UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 pgpAdT6Rp12JX.pgp Description: PGP signature
A New Kind of Science Conference
http://www.wolframscience.com/conference/2006/outline.html
Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
- 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, only other people end up in dead ends. Kind of makes you wonder what Tookie is doing right now. To us, he died as a result of lethal injection. What sort of successor observer-moments can follow a thing like that? Better question--what is the most likely type of 1st-person observer-moment that would follow experiencing lethal injection? Sure, there is an infinitesimal probability that all his constituent particles quantum-tunneled to a Pacific island paradise and right now somewhere in the multiverse he's enjoying a drink with an umbrella in it, thanking the fine State of California for his new life. More likely, but still infinitesimally small, is the probability that only the molecules of toxin in the injection syringe quantum-tunneled away and right now there are execution officials puzzling over whether to pardon him after this act-of-God miraculous reprieve from death. But seriously, when the overwhelmingly vast majority of successor moments to an instant in time are all 3rd-person dead-ends, what would would be an example of a high-expectation 1st-person successor observer-moment from the tiny sliver of physically possible (but extremely unlikely) ones left? Is there in fact always one left, no matter how unlikely? 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 ''successors''. They miss the part of their memories about things that happened after clemency was denied. Instead of those memories they have other memories. We forget things all the time. Sometimes we remember things that didn't really happen. So, we allow for information loss anyway. My point is then that we should forget about all of the information contained in the OM and just sample from the entire set of OMs. The notion of a ''successor'' is not a fundamental notion at all. You can define it any way you like. It will not lead to any conflict with any experiments you can think of.
