Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The ionic gradients across cell membranes determine the
transmembrane potential and how close the neuron is to the voltage
threshold which will trigger an action potential by opening
transmembrane ion channels. Other factors influencing this include the
exact
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Recent theory based on the work of Eric Kandel is that
long term memory is mediated by new protein synthesis in synapses,
which modulates the responsiveness of the synapse to neurotransmitter
release; that is, it isn't just the "wiring diagram" that characterises
a
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
You would also need to know the electrical potential at every point of
every cell membrane; the ionic gradients (Na, K, Ca, pH and others)
across every cell membrane, including intracellular membranes; the
type, position and conformation of every receptor, ion
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 21-juin-05, 05:33, George Levy a crit :
Note that according to this definition the
set of observer states may also encompass states with
inconsistent histories as long as they are indistinguishable.
The possibilities of observer moment being partially
re of an old and sick man is not
greater or smaller than that of
a healthy baby that he observes.
Some of the other threads in this list (i.e., another puzzle described
by Stathis) discuss experiments in which observers are copied and
destroyed. Answers to these questions depend on which two points are
sele
hysical OMs are indistinguishable, the measure cannot
be increased by increasing the number of physical OMs.
An interesting thought is that a psychological first person can surf
simultaneously through a large number of physical OMs.
George Levy
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Godel's theorem:
~Bf - ~B(~Bf),
which is equivalent to B(Bf - f) - Bf,
Just a little aside a la Descartes + Godel: (assume that think and
believe are synonymous and that f = you are)
B(Bf - f) - Bf can be
Hi Hal,
Remember that the chain of events that must lead you to be 1000 years
old must be perfectly logical and consistent. A good science fiction
writer would have no problem weaving a plot that could bring you to such
a situation. One could evoke living in a simulator, or the appearance of
Hi Patrick,
Let me also welcome you to the list.
I agree with Hal that there are several schools of thoughts regarding
many pasts. I believe that a crucial ingredient in accepting the many
past concept is the concept of indiscernibles by Leibniz. If two
objects are indiscernible then they are
Dear list members,
I have found that the Wikipedia encyclopedia (composed and edited by
the public) can be a great source of linked information regarding the
topic of our discussion and can be used by beginners in our list to
become familiar with the topics that we discuss. I suppose that if
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I happen to be a believer in the observer-moment as
fundamental, and the only thing one can be sure of from the first
person perspective. "I think, therefore I am" is taking it too far in
deducing the existence of an observer; "I think, therefore there is a
I believe that according to some or most participants in this list,
transitions between observer moments is representing Time. I have also
been talking about observer moments in the past but I have always
skirted around the issue of defining them.
The concept of observer moment is not clear.
Russel, Stathis
I agree that free will and legal responsibility are different. Free
will is a subjective concept. It is a feeling that one has
about being "master" of one's decisions. In the terminology used in
this list, free will is also a "first person" issue.
Legal responsibility is an
Hi Pete and Russell
While it may be true that the propagation of the wave equation (and the
consequent branching pattern) is deterministic, the actual branch in
which one instance of us finds itself in the Multiverse, is random.
I agree with Russell that free will occurs only in irrational
Bruno
I 'believe that the switch analogy is valuable in expressing belief,
however, I have trouble making a bridge between this analogy and your
explanation. In this post I will make a feeble attempt to make that bridge.
To avoid confusion between my Switch belief function and the one you
use,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi
George, [out-of-line message]
perhaps you could try to motivate your "qBp == If q then p".
I don't see the relation with "if q is 1 then p is known, and and if q
is 0
then p is unknown". How do you manage the "known" notion.
Imagine a three port device such
I am still working to express Lob's formula using the simplest possible
electronic circuit. I am trying to use the well known three-state
concept in electronic as a vehicle for expressing belief .
Let's first define the operator B as a binary operator that uses two
arguments and has one
Bruno
I am trying to visualize Lob formula as a block diagram to be
implemented either in neural net, as computer program or as a digital
cicuit. Digital circuits have the advantage of being very simple
(binary) so let's try to express Lob's formula as a truth table that
could be implemented
Hi Russel
I just came back from vacation and am catching up with the list.
Are you claiming that photon particles are redirected to the detectors
by diffraction around the wires? If so your objection to Afshar's
experiment is not valid because you presupposes that the photons are
waves obeying
Bruno, John, Russell
I am half-way through Smullyan's book. It is an entertaining book for
someone motivated enough to do all these puzzles, but I think that what
is missing is a metalevel discussion of what all this means.
Mathematical fireworks occur because we are dealing with
CMR wrote:
To the question "What is
mathematics" - Podiek's (after Dave Rusin) answer:
Mathematics is the part of science you could continue to do if
you woke up tomorrow and discovered the universe was gone.
Let me make an analogy by paraphrasing: Empty space is the part
Hi Stephen
Let me add my grain of salt to Bruno's post. The No Cloning Theorem
applies to the physical duplication but not necessarily to the
duplication of information that is carried by a physical substrate. For
example, you could very well make a copy of a DVD that reproduces
exactly the
Hi Bruno
As a variation of my last post, I would like to use your teleportation
experiment rather than Q-suicide to illustrate the First and Third
Person concept, in a manner that parallels Einstein's scenario in which
two observers in different inertial frames of reference observe that the
s that consciousness
is unaware of
1) any substitution of parts or the whole of its physical
implemetation (i.e. body)
2) its own measure (the size of the subset of worlds in the
manyworld that sustain his or her consciousness)
George Levy
Jeanne Houston wrote:
I am a quantum physics en
Bruno Marchal wrote:
GL wrote:
A first person
perception is
a subjective or relative experience.
A third person perception is an objective or
absolute experience.
Of course I would say
A first person perception is a subjective experience,
and
then an absolute one (in the
ngoing, omnipresent, and inherently coupled
with the physical laws at the most fundamental level.
George Levy
Bruno Marchal wrote:
At 17:50
05/06/04 -0700, George Levy wrote:
Let's me see if I can convince you to bridge
the gap and maybe take the relative formulation as a starting point.
Like Socrates, let me start with one question. How can you possibly
know to begin with this particular
like "1+1=2", "Prime(17)",
or "the machine number i
(in some enumeration) does not stop on
input number j", this + Church Thesis + the "yes doctor"
act of faith is what I mean by comp.
George Levy
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi George,
At 15:33 03/06/04 -
but becomes a quagmire because of its lack of formalism.
How can the notion of "objective reality" be defined? In fact, is there
such a thing as a true psychological objective reality? However, the
fact that a "psychological objective reality" is an oxymoron
(contradiction in terms) does not invalidate the definition of the
observer at the psychological level. Au contraire.
George Levy
:
George
Levy
To:
Stephen
Paul King
Sent:
Wednesday, May 12, 2004 3:00 PM
Subject:
Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?
Stephen,
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear George,
How does indeterminacy and
multiple-world-occupation
Hi Stephen
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear George,
Interleaving.
-
Original Message -
From:
George
Levy
To:
Stephen
Paul King
Sent:
Wednesday, May 12, 2004 3:00 PM
Subject:
Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer
Bruno Marchal wrote:
At 15:51 10/05/04 -0700, George Levy wrote:
BM: But you agree there is no plenitude without an UD.
GL: No I don't agree. I don't agree that the UD is the origin of all
things.
But to say that there is no plenitude without an UD does not mean that
the UD
is the origin
ue, May 11, 2004 at 04:10:15PM -0700, George Levy wrote:
Russell wrote
However, the mind-body problem doesn't completely disappear - rather
it is transformed into "Why the Anthropic Principle?".
Once you have accepted that "I" exist and
Hi Stephen
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear George,
My take of Russell's post is:
Unless the creature had some experience that
was not dismissible as a hallucination (1st person) and/or was witness
by others (a proxy of 3rd person?) that lead him to the conclusion that
Bruno,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
At 16:13 07/05/04 -0700, George Levy wrote:
Bruno,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
My view is that the observer-experience simply consists in the
(virtual) transitions from one observer-moment to another where
the transition is filtered by having to be consistent
I study with provability logic.
Another problem with the idea of low level, or of simple program
is that even a program with 2^2^2^2^2^2^2^2^2^2^2^2^2^2^2^2^2^64
as minimal bit-length is quite little in comparison of almost all number
in Plato Heaven.
Bruno
At 15:56 05/05/04 -0700, George Levy
ot; seems to self-correct by itself. It is that
self-measure I study with provability logic.
Another problem with the idea of "low" level, or of "simple program"
is that even a program with 2^2^2^2^2^2^2^2^2^2^2^2^2^2^2^2^2^64
as minimal bit-length is quite little in comparison
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Put in another way, *either* the massive computer simulates the exact
laws of physics (exact with comp = the laws extractible from the
measure on all 1-computations) in which case we belong to it but
in that case we belong also to all its copy in Platonia, and our
Jesse Mazer wrote:
George Levy wrote:
You assume that you could get your hands on the absolute probability
distribution. You must assume when you observe a physical system is
that you are an observer. The existence of (objective) absolute
reality is another assumption that may
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Eric Hawthorne
writes:
I'll grant you that the subjective experience of "red" etc cannot be
derived from a theory of physics.
However, by Occam's Razor we can say that the qualia that other people
experience are the same as those that we experience.
The
ABSTRACT:
Suggestion for keeping up with the volume of posts is to provide an
abstract.
CONTENT
I share Sergio's problem. I just can't keep up. How about providing an
abstract summarizing the post. Either that or keep your content less
than half a page.
George
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
of the subroutine B is
meaningless. It is the number of calls to B from A{}that matters.
George Levy
Hal Finney wrote:
David Barrett-Lennard writes:
Why is it assumed that a multiple "runs" makes any difference to the
measure?
One reason I like this
to display a macroscopic white rabbit.
Ergo: No observable macroscopic white rabbit.
But of course the biggest rabbit is taken for granted. It is right under
our nose and so close that we don't see it.
George Levy
is intimately tied up with our
own rationality which is an essential ingredient of our consciousness.
Thus the world itself seems to be a product of ourselves.
George Levy
-worlds, and COMP. What in
the nature of consciousness makes such a layer important?
George Levy
Eric Cavalcanti wrote:
I think this discussion might have already took place
here, but I would like to take you opinions on this.
How do we define (de)coherence? What makes interference
happen
John Collins wrote:
One interpretation of
the universe of constructible sets found in standard set theory textbooks is
that even if you start with nothing, you can say that's a thing, and put
brackets around it and then you've got two things: nothing and {nothing}.
And then you also have
Ron,
I am not a physicist, just a dabbling engineer philosoper, however, the
idea of dark energy is intriguing. I asked a question a few weeks ago,
whether dark (mass) energy is identical to negative (mass) energy and
what the implications would be in terms of Newton mechanics. The reason
for
Russel,
If you view the "observer-moments" as transitions rather than states,
then there is no need for requiring a time dimension. Each
observer-moments carries with it its own subjective feeling of time.
Different observer-moments can form vast networks without any time
requirement.
Saibal
what would you do with the lamp
ONF? This is something we should really worry about instead of
worrying about the lamp!
George Levy
Norman Samich wrote
Welcome,
I've been looking for an idiot savant
to answer this question: Perhaps you've heard of Thompson's Lamp.
This isan ideal lamp, capable
Hi Doriano,
Welcome to the list.
You raise an interesting problem and. I don't know the answer to your
question. However, I just want to point out that an observer in relative
motion observes the rotation in the complex plane of space-time
geodesics. Could there be a connection between
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear George,
Interleaving,
- Original Message -
From: George Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: are we in a simulation?
HI Stephen
Stephen Paul King wrote:
[SPK]
Does
Hi Stephen,
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Friends,
Does computational complexity (such as NP-Completeness, etc.)
and computational power requirements factor into the idea of
simulated worlds?
It may. Also important is the issue that Tegmark raised in the
Scientific American
Sorry about the graphics... There were'nt any except some italics I think.
I'll send this one in plain text.. tell me how it goes.
Hal Finney wrote:
George Levy writes:
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
html
head
Oh, sorry, I'
We exist in an infinite number of simulations. Any arbitrary number of simulations
less than infinity would require a reason. We are led to this conclusion
by assuming a TOE which by definition has no a-priori reason. (This is the
philosophical rationale for postulating the plenitude)
Stephen,
Amazingly, I had kind-of the same thought. From the point of view of information
flow, there seems to be an analogy between
1) falling down into a black hole and
2) "dying."
Both events results in the cessation of information flow between two observers.
In both cases one of the
I am sorry to see Tim leave. We certainly need a multi-sided discussion
and some of his latest post were interesting in his challenge of the
concept of Quantum Suicide. However he did not convince me he was right
- I remain an agnostic - and quitting in the middle of a good discussion
is poor
Tim, Hal, Russell
Since we have several futures ( and several pasts), time travel is just a
particular case of many-world travel.
Here is a (white) hared brained idea on how to build a time machine. You
need a very good recording device and a Quantum Suicide (QS) machine.
1) You allow the
Tim May wrote
If you mean that
"many presents" have "many pasts," yes. But the current present only has
a limited number of pasts, possibly just one. (The origin of this asymmetry
in the lattice of events is related to our being in one present.)
I mean one (many?) present has many
This
is a reply to Eric Hawthorne and Tim May.
Eric Hawthorne wrote:
George Levy wrote:
Conclusions:
All this involves really basic probability theory.
The first person perspective probability is identical to the probability
conditional to the person staying alive
Hi Brent.
Brent Meeker wrote:
I don't understand the point of this modification. The idea of QS was
to arrange that in all possible worlds in which I exist, I'm rich.
If it's just a matter of being rich in a few and not rich in the
rest, I don't need any QS.
Yes but you only
Thanks Bruno, for your comments, I fully agree with you. Let me add a few
comments for Tim and Scerir
Tim May wrote:
Consider this thought experiment: Alice is facing her quantum mechanics exam
at Berkeley. She sees two main approaches to take. First, study hard and
try to answer all of
frame of
reference. How does the knowledge of the machine affect the frame of
reference? What is the essence of the frame of reference?
George Levy
Saibal Mitra wrote:
Suppose you are a virtual person, programmed by me and living in a virtual
environment. You do some experiments to find the laws of physics. You try to
break up things and look what they are ``made of´´. Would you ever discover
how the pentium processor works if you
Jesse Mazer wrote:
George Levy wrote:
Without our quantum laws, for example, if we lived in a mechanistic
universe, electrons, unfettered by their quantum levels would fall
into their nucleii resulting in the almost immediate annihilation of
all matter in the universe and a huge
Wei Dai wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 11:53:10PM -0700, George Levy wrote:
After discussing the idea of QS with their dear friend Mercutio, Romeo and Juliet decide to go ahead with the project. Mercutio design the machine and under his instruction, B
Bruno Marchal wrote:
At 23:53 -0700 27/09/2002, George Levy wrote:
Here is a thought experiment illustrating a paradox involving the
first and third person point of views.
Romeo and Juliet, being very unhappy with their families, the
Montague and the Capulet, decide to engage in QS
Here is a thought experiment illustrating a paradox involving the first
and third person point of views.
Romeo and Juliet, being very unhappy with their families, the Montague
and the Capulet, decide to engage in QS. (By QS, I do not mean Quantum
Sex, even though such an activity has
Russell Standish wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
George Levy wrote:...As it stand, the comp hypothesis is only a philosophical exercise because it does not reproduce the same phenomenon as QM in particular the phenomenon of complementarity. Therefore, to establish a meaningful relevance
jamikes wrote:
George Levy wrote a comprehensive thought
experiment with a major flaw:
6.6257 square miles arenot interchangeable
to 6.6257 sqare kilometers.
There was indeterminacy in the units. But the number is real and does correspond
to a natural constant
Bruno Marchal wrote:
George Levy wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
George Levy asks recently Could somebody incorporate
complementarity in a thought experiment in the style of Bruno's
duplication experiment?
This is an interesting proposal and I would be glad if someone manage
to present
scerir wrote:
002401c25780$ce1358c0$f0c7fea9@scerir">
George Levy:
5) Is complementarity anthropically necessary?
I may be wrong but it seems to me that complementarity
is nothing more, and nothing less than a consequence
of the finiteness of (quantum) inf
07, 2002 7:39PM
Subject: Re: Duplication ThoughtExperiment Involving Complementarity
Bruno Marchal wrote:
George Levy asks recently "Could somebody incorporate complementarity
in a thought experiment in the style of Bruno's du
Bruno Marchal wrote:
George Levy asks recently "Could somebody incorporate complementarity in
a thought experiment in the style of Bruno's duplication experiment?"
This is an interesting proposal and I would be glad if someone manage
to present one. Just that it i
Hal Finney wrote:
Quantum randomness does not exist in the MWI. It is an illusion caused by
the same effect which Bruno Marchal describes in his thought experiments,
where an observer who is about to enter a duplication device has multiple
possible futures, which he treats as random.
Could
Beautiful post, Hal. I have read and reread Rudy Rucker's "Infinity and the
Mind" four or five times. This is such a rich book that I enjoy it everytime.
His explanation of the infinite always leaves me in awe.
I agree with you that our brains and our bit-based digital computers are
limited
jamikes wrote:
007f01c24609$8a1cfa00$5e76d03f@default">
I was missing your input lately
Yes, I am very busy preparing for a patent bar. But I still read the list.
I don't have too much time to dig deep into the references so I can't comment
intelligently when the going gets too
I have been following the latest very scholarly exchange involving different
logical models in relation to the MWI, however I fail to see how it relates
to my own perception of the world and my own consciousness unless I think
according to those formal systems which I think is unlikely.
Using
Hal Finney wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
I took the liberty of copying a few paragraphs from James Joyce'sbook describing the causalist argument in Newcomb's Paradox. This isthe best statement of the argument for taking both boxes that I haveseen. I also included a short response of my own,
e tomorrow, and from you today
to you tomorrow.
George Levy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
Deutsh and and Tegmark's idea.
George Levy
Wei Dai wrote:
I find that I often have trouble understanding posts on this mailing list,
given the wide range of intellectual ground that it covers. It seems that
people sometimes assume a background in an academic field, and I'm not
even sure
This is interesting. Is it possible to transmit information from the
future to the past? If yes, how would this information be restricted?
George
scerir wrote:
Saibal Mitra
Now there exists a class of universes,
with a very low measure, in which the
laws of physics are such that I am
Wei Dai wrote:
The thing is, we need a decision theory, otherwise it's not clear what
predictions mean. To be cute about it, I could say that without a decision
theory, a prediction is no more than a number (probability) attached to a
statement, devoid of other meaning. Once you think
Nick Bostrom wrote:
I have just finished a paper (which had been existing in a half-baked
form for much too long) that might be of interest to the list members.
It has its own website at http://www.simulation-argument.com (which
also contains a few related resources).
Are You Living In
I would like to clarify Marshall's post if I may.
Marchal wrote:
snip
But then you learn that some channels are pirated by some sadical
people in need of chair ..., and some commercials tell you that by
paying a little more, your code can be quantum protected on some
channel making such
Pete Carlton wrote:
George Levy wrote:
snip
Free will is also relativistic. A consciousness gives the impression of
having free will if its behavior is unpredicatble (ineffable -
unprovable) BY THE OBSERVER. The self gives the impression to the
OBSERVING SELF of having free
rwas wrote:
--- Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
On 10-Oct-01, Marchal wrote:
You talk like if you have a proof of the existence of matter. Like
if
it was
obvious subtancia are consistent. But you know substancia only
appears
in Aristote mind when
Hi Charles
Sorry, I am not responsible for these statements. I was only quoting
Bruno Marchal's post or 09/19. However, I agree with Bruno very much. It
seems that as in mathematics, any (religious) belief anchored by a rigid
credo (set of axioms) is bound to be either incomplete or
Marchal wrote:
George Levy wrote
This paradox can easily be solved by falling back on a relativistic
approach. Each observer has his/her own frame of reference. All
perceptions are relative to the observer. Period. After all, Einstein's
Relativity does not use first person and third
Marchal wrote:
George Levy wrote
This paradox can easily be solved by falling back on a relativistic
approach. Each observer has his/her own frame of reference. All
perceptions are relative to the observer. Period. After all, Einstein's
Relativity does not use first person and third
Who is the enemy?
What is moral? What is not moral?
What is morality in the context of the MWI?
Is Quantum Suicide moral?
Let me propose a conjecture and let us see how far we can go with it:
Morality is the creation, protection and preservation of information.
Immorality is the destruction
Wonderful post Bruno! I agree with you 100%.
It reminds me of a great book with the title One by Richard Bach the
author of Jonathan Linvingston Seagull, There Is No Such Place As Far
Away and The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah. In One Richard Bach
asks the questions--what if we could meet
Hi Saibal,
I don't know if there is an accepted formulation for QTI and the
conservation of memory, however, the only constraint that seems logical
to me is that the consciousness extensions should be logically
consistent, because logical consistenty is a prerequisite for
consciousness.
I can
The lines are too large for my screen to handle but I have fixed that by
setting my Netscape to wrap automatically (it does so at around 70
characters). The output is irregular but it's OK.
Charles Goodwin wrote:
Re wrapping around - I've set MS Outlook to wrap at 132 characters (the largest
Mitch Haegel is an observer of the Everything list. He sent me this post. I
thought that sharing my response with the group may be appropriate.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was sad to read, yesterday, about the untimely passing of James Higgo -a
real bummer. Very discouraging, even if MWI is
Hal Ruhl wrote:
My point is that the Nothing is unstable. It does not know this - it can
only test it.
I can't even begin to give you a meaningful answer. We are talking a totally
different language. How can Nothing know? How can it test it?
Since it has no information it is also
Hal, thanks for restarting our discussion. After my last inane post of July 12th on
adding the singunal/plenal concept to language to deal with I-plural, I thought I
had killed the group.
Hal Ruhl wrote:
Dear George:
Just a quick comment since I happened to read the end first.
At 6/3/01,
George Levy wrote:
I think that measure of self is always the same as observed by the self,
independently of the observer's frame of reference. .. just like the speed of
light.
I just want to continue the train of thought about measure and perform a type of UD
experiment that Bruno has been
Marchal wrote:
Levy wrote:
We might as well take the bull by the horns! Let's be precise and expand the
English language. We can also expand French.
Since some French pronouns already end with s (nous, vous, ils/elles) I suggest we
add sh instead of a plain s. So in French we could have:
Marchal wrote:
Levy wrote:
An example of first person plural is for example myself thinking about the
many other myselves in other branches having made other choices of
professions/wives/stock market etc...
Mmh ... That's all first persons, or third persons imo. Remember that
first
Marchal wrote:
It is better to read (change in capital):
This is of course still countable when you look at the domain
from a third person point of view. But, as you aknowledge in
question 7, the delays does not count for the first person, so
the domain of 1-indeterminacy, which BEARS
101 - 200 of 237 matches
Mail list logo
