Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
Le 07-mars-07, à 04:40, Jesse Mazer wrote : http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_thread/thread/ 0d5915764b7f3e08/fc56caf79ce58750?#fc56caf79ce58750 Jesse That is: 14 Mar 2001: Jesse wrote (in part): A lot of people have a lot of different ideas about TOE's on this list, so maybe the global measure issue could help clarify where we all stand in relation to each other...do people have specific proposals about this? I guess the other relevant question is, what is the set of everything that you're putting the measure on...all computations? All mathematical structures? All observer-moments? John M asked also: BTW: what do you mean by interviewing the L-machine? Jesse's question is *the* important question in the list. I just recall it. But also, I will take the opportunity of John's question to explain a bit more the interview of the Lobian machine, and what that is, and how it helps to provide answers to Jesse's questions, when we assume explicitly the comp hyp. Asap, because I'm busy. I will try to give answers without too much technical details, but that is really what makes that exercise difficult. I hope I can do that already this week. Of course everyone can use the question of Jesse to make a bit more precise where they stand from the others indeed, I'm interested too. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RSSA / ASSA / Single Mind Theory
With ASSA/RSSA there is the assumption that there is a sampling, that of all observers (or observer moments) one is selected and experienced. Consider momentarily, that no sampling was taking place? Is this view consistent and valid? Note that by no sampling I mean no discrimination. Instead of one oberserver or observer-moment being chosen, all are chosen and all are experienced. In this regard the pronoun you becomes meaningless, it could be said that all perspectives are experienced by a single mind. When a person is born an observer is not created, rather the universe gains a new perspective upon itself. The same is true in all the paradoxes of duplication/copying of observers. Instead of there being a 50% chance of experiencing Washington or Moscow there is a 100% chance the universe perceives both viewpoints. I do not believe there would be any noticeable difference if this single mind experienced each observer-moment serially, simultanesouly, or each for eternally. Although I think it is simpler to say every observer-moment is being experienced eternally, as each brain state exists eternally in platonia. If this view happens to be consistent, then by Occam's razor it should be perferred over ASSA or RSSA since it does not require there be any sampling. After I developed this idea, I found that it was almost identical to ideas held by Erwin Schrödinger, who said: There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds or consciousness. Their multiplicity is only apparent, in truth there is only one mind. and [...] the plurality of sensitive beings is mere appearance (maya); in reality they are all only aspects of the one being. * Quotes obtained from http://www.cts.cuni.cz/~havel/work/schroe94.html --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: RSSA / ASSA / Single Mind Theory
Jason: your idea sounds sound. I wonder if it is not a variation of the situation according to which in facto there is only ONE outcome under given circumstances of the actual OM, but we have the creativity of imagining more than just the one that occurs? I formulated this when I did not like the 'bifurcation' with which the lit was spread full some time ago. Then I argued that the scientist (who maybe a normal person as well) cannot propose more ways for a process to proceed than the (occurring) ONE allowed by the totality and its combined consequence, the other(s) are only speculations. Besides I argued against the bi: nature is not restricted to only TWO ways to choose from and introduced the 'multifurcation' insted (to deny.G). I was so proud to agree with Schrodinger (ha ha). John - Original Message - From: Jason To: Everything List Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 2:48 PM Subject: RSSA / ASSA / Single Mind Theory With ASSA/RSSA there is the assumption that there is a sampling, that of all observers (or observer moments) one is selected and experienced. Consider momentarily, that no sampling was taking place? Is this view consistent and valid? Note that by no sampling I mean no discrimination. Instead of one oberserver or observer-moment being chosen, all are chosen and all are experienced. In this regard the pronoun you becomes meaningless, it could be said that all perspectives are experienced by a single mind. When a person is born an observer is not created, rather the universe gains a new perspective upon itself. The same is true in all the paradoxes of duplication/copying of observers. Instead of there being a 50% chance of experiencing Washington or Moscow there is a 100% chance the universe perceives both viewpoints. I do not believe there would be any noticeable difference if this single mind experienced each observer-moment serially, simultanesouly, or each for eternally. Although I think it is simpler to say every observer-moment is being experienced eternally, as each brain state exists eternally in platonia. If this view happens to be consistent, then by Occam's razor it should be perferred over ASSA or RSSA since it does not require there be any sampling. After I developed this idea, I found that it was almost identical to ideas held by Erwin Schrödinger, who said: There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds or consciousness. Their multiplicity is only apparent, in truth there is only one mind. and [...] the plurality of sensitive beings is mere appearance (maya); in reality they are all only aspects of the one being. * Quotes obtained from http://www.cts.cuni.cz/~havel/work/schroe94.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.4/768 - Release Date: 4/19/2007 5:32 AM --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: RSSA / ASSA / Single Mind Theory
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 06:48:06PM -, Jason wrote: With ASSA/RSSA there is the assumption that there is a sampling, that of all observers (or observer moments) one is selected and experienced. Consider momentarily, that no sampling was taking place? Is this view consistent and valid? Note that by no sampling I mean no discrimination. Instead of one oberserver or observer-moment being chosen, all are chosen and all are experienced. In this regard the pronoun you becomes meaningless, it could be said that all perspectives are experienced by a single mind. When a person is born an observer is not created, rather the universe gains a new perspective upon itself. The same is true in all the paradoxes of duplication/copying of observers. Instead of there being a 50% chance of experiencing Washington or Moscow there is a 100% chance the universe perceives both viewpoints. I'm not really sure what you mean by no sampling. The sampling refers to experiencing one OM selected from a set of multiple OMs. The only way for this not to occur is for there to actually be only one OM to select, or for all OMs to be experienced simultaneously. I would argue that both of these cases contradict experience. I would even go out on a limb and suggest that consciousness would be impossible if it were not possible to experience different OM's sequentially, ie to be able to form bits. Of course all OMs are experienced, (that is by definition) but not all OMs are experienced simultaneously by a given experiencer. That is what sampling means. -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: RSSA / ASSA / Single Mind Theory
On Apr 19, 6:27 am, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 06:48:06PM -, Jason wrote: With ASSA/RSSA there is the assumption that there is a sampling, that of all observers (or observer moments) one is selected and experienced. Consider momentarily, that no sampling was taking place? Is this view consistent and valid? Note that by no sampling I mean no discrimination. Instead of one oberserver or observer-moment being chosen, all are chosen and all are experienced. In this regard the pronoun you becomes meaningless, it could be said that all perspectives are experienced by a single mind. When a person is born an observer is not created, rather the universe gains a new perspective upon itself. The same is true in all the paradoxes of duplication/copying of observers. Instead of there being a 50% chance of experiencing Washington or Moscow there is a 100% chance the universe perceives both viewpoints. I'm not really sure what you mean by no sampling. The sampling refers to experiencing one OM selected from a set of multiple OMs. The only way for this not to occur is for there to actually be only one OM to select, or for all OMs to be experienced simultaneously. I would argue that both of these cases contradict experience. I would even go out on a limb and suggest that consciousness would be impossible if it were not possible to experience different OM's sequentially, ie to be able to form bits. Of course all OMs are experienced, (that is by definition) but not all OMs are experienced simultaneously by a given experiencer. That is what sampling means. What if you were simultaneously experiencing every OM? Would any individual OM be able to tell? OM's isolated by different brains are non-interacting, so any single OM won't have memories from another. Consider two brains being simulated by a single computer, each as different processes. The computer instantiates two conscious observers at once, but neither observer remembers being the other because protected memory insures one program can't access the other's memory. The same is true for our universe where physics is the single computer realizing all observer moments, but our individual brains act as protected memory creating the illusion of multiple minds. As Bruno says, future OM's follow from consistent computations implementing an observer; so what if multiple observers are part of a single program, as would be the case if this universe is computable? Does the program of this universe not realize all perspectives simultaneously? In a sense, a single mind approach follows from there being a single objective reality, the appearance of multiple minds comes from the segmentation of memory. Memory maintains the illusion of personal identity. Jason --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: RSSA / ASSA / Single Mind Theory
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 11:16:16PM -, Jason wrote: What if you were simultaneously experiencing every OM? Would any individual OM be able to tell? Individual OMs do not tell anything. Only persons (or minds or observers) do. If I were simultaneously experiencing all OMs, I could tell. OM's isolated by different brains are non-interacting, so any single OM won't have memories from another. Consider two brains being simulated by a single computer, each as different processes. The computer instantiates two conscious observers at once, but neither observer remembers being the other because protected memory insures one program can't access the other's memory. Then you have two different conscious observers observing different OMs. The fact that they're implemented in a timesharing fashion on the same hardware is irrelevant. The same is true for our universe where physics is the single computer realizing all observer moments, but our individual brains act as protected memory creating the illusion of multiple minds. As Bruno says, future OM's follow from consistent computations implementing an observer; so what if multiple observers are part of a single program, as would be the case if this universe is computable? Does the program of this universe not realize all perspectives simultaneously? In a sense, a single mind approach follows from there being a single objective reality, the appearance of multiple minds comes from the segmentation of memory. Memory maintains the illusion of personal identity. Jason The issue of whether there is but a single mind or not is a rather different kettle of fish from whether mind(s) experience OMs simultaneously or not. A single mind still samples OMs from the set available, rather than experiencing all relevant OMs simultaneously. We have had discussions here about the possibility of Jesse Mazer morphing into Bruno, and also about David Parfit's thought experiment of morphing a person into Napoleon Bonaparte. I have expressed doubts on this list as to whether this is possible, particularly in the form of the thought experiments given by Parfit, but assuming it is possible, then a single mind theory would have legs. -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: RSSA / ASSA / Single Mind Theory
On 4/20/07, Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With ASSA/RSSA there is the assumption that there is a sampling, that of all observers (or observer moments) one is selected and experienced. Consider momentarily, that no sampling was taking place? Is this view consistent and valid? Note that by no sampling I mean no discrimination. Instead of one oberserver or observer-moment being chosen, all are chosen and all are experienced. In this regard the pronoun you becomes meaningless, it could be said that all perspectives are experienced by a single mind. When a person is born an observer is not created, rather the universe gains a new perspective upon itself. The same is true in all the paradoxes of duplication/copying of observers. Instead of there being a 50% chance of experiencing Washington or Moscow there is a 100% chance the universe perceives both viewpoints. I do not believe there would be any noticeable difference if this single mind experienced each observer-moment serially, simultanesouly, or each for eternally. Although I think it is simpler to say every observer-moment is being experienced eternally, as each brain state exists eternally in platonia. If this view happens to be consistent, then by Occam's razor it should be perferred over ASSA or RSSA since it does not require there be any sampling. Even if there is in a sense just one mind perceiving all OM's simultaneously (Platonia, the mind of God, the Universe), there is still the fact that the OM in Washington does not directly share the experiences of its counterpart in Moscow. If it did, then they would not be distinct OM's. From the third person perspective, there is no mystery in duplication: where previously there was one, now there are two. The paradoxes arise from the fact that we have the sort of minds which consider that one OM has a particular relationship to another OM, based partly, but not entirely, on memory. For example, if I am to be copied tomorrow and one of the copies tortured, I am worried, because I feel there is a 50% chance that I will be the one; but come tomorrow, and I am not tortured, I am relieved, and feel pity for my copy screaming in the next room. This doesn't really make sense: today I anticipate being both copies, and neither copy has greater claim to being me than the other, but tomorrow the situation is completely different. But the subjective view doesn't have to make sense. It's just the way we think, a contingent fact of evolution. Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Get more traffic by submitting Articles
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:54:12 -0500 (CDT) Get more traffic by submitting Articles Article submission is perhaps one of the best ways to give weight to your products and services on the Internetthat is, if done correctly, but like link exchange, it is also abused. But a fact is that Article Marketing is not about to die. It's alive and strong! It has been noticed that a lot of authors are submitting articles for the wrong reasons. Authors are submitting half baked articles fueled by a Page Rank and Back Link craze, a very fruitless endeavor. Like in link exchange, the search engines have wisened up and are getting better at weeding out spam. The same is the case with article submissions also. It's essential and significant that you submit quality articles. A badly written article may generate you that back link that you so much desire, but the real purpose of submitting your article to an article marketing directory is to gain publishers who will willingly accept and publish your articles on their websites, blogs and newsletters; that's where the real traffic comes from. Publishers should want to publish your article...and they will not publish a poorly written and disguised article. Submitting numerous short and messily written articles will do you no good. Also submitting the same article with a few modifications over and over is also not acceptable; duplicate content defeats the purpose of a directory. An author needs to sit back, think and choose a good topic and come up with a unique article that is an effective marketing tool, an article that captivates the reader and makes them want to publish it, blog it, bookmark it, print and/or forward it to their friends. Anything less is really a waste of time! In order to gain any toehold in the marketing arena with your articles, an author must make a sincere attempt to write immaculate articles. You may need to remember the Quality rules to write a perfect article some of them is mentioned below! As an author, your number one priority when writing an article is uniqueness and quality. You must write powerfully and off course should always remember the purpose of writing the article. Your writing must be attractive and influential; otherwise it's not worth. Writing a few very good articles and submitting them to carefully selected high traffic article directories is more fruitful than software generating hundreds of articles revolving around one narrow topic. Write good articles and let it come to you naturallythe search engines will reward you as bloggers and webmasters will post your articles on their sites, something they will only do if your writing is inspiring and relevant. Look at your article as Your Product or Your Service. A service or product that is not choreographed appropriately will almost always be rejected and will never be marked as high so keeping this concept will give you guidance to write proper and appropriate articles that will generate traffic infact we should say useful traffic. In summary, Write on topics that mean something to you. Next your Plan should be clear originally structured and offshore interesting. The next important point is that your writing must be grammatically and syntactically correct. Ideally your article(s) should be between 700 to 1200 words long so that it normally fits the article submission sites rules. There are plenty of writing samples and guides all over the internet. Look for them and use them. Visit article directories and read the articles within. Just take the idea and then create your own. Nobody is asking you to re-invent the writing wheel, but it's of utmost importance that you keep side by side with what the top authors are doing. Get feedback from your friends and colleagues. Two or more heads have always been better than one also asking them to recheck your article for spelling and grammar stuff. Article marketing should be a win-win situation for directory owners and authors, therefore responsible directory owners should always guide their authors and help them improve their thinking for uniqueness, writing and submitting skills; such as digging up information for them and emailing it to them in the form of a weekly newsletter, a blog or a forum. Additionally, directory owners should engage their authors in meaningful discussions on article writing and submitting and very important general marketing, as it is part and parcel of the cut throat Internet Marketing Game, a science that must be taken seriously. Anil Vij specializes in Internet traffic generation through Articles and Links . For more information on how to increase your traffic by 400%! Visit www.blastarticles.com Today. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to
