.
Hal Finney
.
Hal Finney
I know of no reason to assume that the various branches of MWI run
concurrently.
If they do not run concurrently then the only way I see for immortality is
to be in a branch where immortality is already a possibility inherent in
that branch.
Hal Ruhl
are indistinguishable from
nondeterministic ones.
Hal
retrospectively. If prices fall, then we
were in a bubble; if they don't, then we weren't. But both futures exist.
I live in worlds where we are in a bubble and worlds where we are not in
a bubble. The question has no answer.
Hal Finney
erasure that is and
is not possible?
Hal Finney
observer-moments and then diverge), or
even braid together in interesting ways. That means that there is no
unique sense in which you are a particular observer, at any moment;
rather, you can be thought of as any of the observers who share your
current observer-moment.
Hal Finney
, it depends on multiple creations of each program, and the fraction
of the whole infinite ensemble that each program represents.
Hal Finney
Hi Stephen:
At 04:37 PM 5/6/2005, you wrote:
Dear Hal,
No, I disagree. The mere a priori existence of bit strings is not
enough to imply necessity that what we experience 1st person view points.
At best it allows the possibility that the bit strings could be
implemented. You see the problem
their ideas are obsolete and have no reference or value given
our much deeper modern understanding of these issues.
Hal Finney
dimensions are unlikely to have
observers. The point is, you can't go quoting Leibniz about
this stuff. We've left him far behind.
Hal Finney
Hi Jeanne:
It is much the same thing. More or less the first person is the one
standing in Bruno's transporter and the third person is the one operating
it.
Several years ago I started a FAQ for this list but lacked the necessary
time to finish.
Hal Ruhl
At 02:54 PM 5/8/2005, you wrote:
I
-based universe has a short program that
determines its evolution, or creates its state. A random universe has
no program much smaller than itself which can encode its information.
Hal Finney
The usual approach is that a system which is algorithmically
compressible is defined as random. A rule-based universe has
a short program that determines its evolution, or creates its
state. A random universe has no program much smaller than
itself which can encode its information.
Hal
ones where we are
at a very advanced age due to miraculous luck.
Hal Finney
From: Hal Finney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Another way to think of it is that all bit strings
exist, timelessly; and some of them implicitly specify computer programs;
and some of those computer programs would create universes with observers
just like us in them. You don't necessarily need
on the topic. Or the SciAm cover story, Infinite Earths in PARALLEL
UNIVERSES Really Exist, May 2003.
Hal Finney
Brent Meeker writes:
From: Hal Finney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, I think it is enough that I have thought of the concept! Or more
accurately, I think it is enough that the concept is thinkable-of.
Why bother with the computer at all. Since you're just conceptualizing the
computer
[I will assume that Brent meant to forward this to the list, his
mailer often seems to send replies only to me.]
Brent wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Hal Finney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 5:06 AM
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: FW: Everything
Stathis Papaioannou writes:
Hal,
I should add that I don't believe in QTI, I don't believe that we are
guaranteed to experience such outcomes. I prefer the observer-moment
concept in which we are more likely to experience observer-moments where
we are young and living within a normal
their lives in universe branches
where you do not survive, that you should act as though those branches
don't exist?
Hal Finney
does
not seem to give us grounds to estimate measure a priori (although I
think Bruno may have a method which is supposed to do that). We have
to use both concepts to get a complete picture of what is going on.
Hal Finney
. There are some results
in algorithmic information theory which go part way in this direction,
but there seem to be loopholes that are hard to avoid. So things are not
quite as simple as I have said, but I think the thrust of the argument
shows the direction to pursue.
Hal Finney
argument doesn't go through.
To repair his argument it would be necessary to prove that the altered
computation is unconscious.)
You can follow the thread and date index links off the messages above
to see much more discussion of the issue of implementation.
Hal Finney
connection to
the rest of his theory, though.
Hal Finney
as the information
state of the OM is consistent between the various branches, there is
no fact of the matter as to which branch it is really in. That is the
sense in which we can say that observers merge and that observer moments
have multiple pasts.
Hal Finney
exist.
The question then becomes not, why is there something instead of nothing;
but, why is there something instead of everything.
Now, we don't know yet if everything exists, or merely some things exist,
so it is an open question. But it does seem to be a question that needs
to be answered.
Hal
(never clear what that meant)
corresponds to a formal axiomatic system, then we could use a measure
based on the size of the axiomatic description. I don't remember now
whether Tegmark considered his mathematical objects to be the same as
formal systems or not.
Hal Finney
that are too big to be sets, can have a measure meaningfully
applied to them. However I do not know enough math to fully understand
his proposal.
Hal Finney
decoherence experiment would
find a violation of QM, or you have to believe in the MWI.
Don't you?
Hal Finney
complicated natural laws. One simple example would be the fine
structure constant, which might turn out to be an uncomputable number.
That wouldn't be inconsistent with our existence, but it is hard to see
how our being here could depend on such a property.
Hal Finney
can do as Russell suggests and represent it as
a Taylor series, which is a countable set of real numbers and can be
expressed via a countable number of bits. I'm not sure how to extend
this result to continuous but non-differentiable functions but I'm pretty
sure the same thing applies.
Hal
be
a disappointingly trivial result. And it would not shed light on the
original question of proving that an arbitrary continuous function can
be represented by a countably infinite number of bits.
Hal
We discussed Plaga's paper back in June, 2002. I reported some skeptical
analysis of the paper by John Baez of sci.physics fame, at
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m3686.html . I also gave some
reasons of my own why arbitrary inter-universe quantum communication
should be impossible.
Hal
there is no natural starting point which distinguishes the
origin of space. We can't have a non-uniform measure in a homogeneous
space, unless we just pick an origin arbitrarily. So in this case the
probability-limit concept seems most appropriate.
Hal Finney
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 26-mai-05, à 18:03, Hal Finney a écrit :
One problem with the UD is that the probability that an integer is even
is not 1/2, and that it is prime is not zero. Probabilities in general
will not equal those defined based on limits as in the earlier
paragraph
that all logically possible
universes exist, I would just say that all universes exist. And of course
as we try to understand the nature of such a multiverse, we will attempt
to be logically consistent in our reasoning. That's where logic comes in.
Hal Finney
with the Everett branches would be possible
as well.
Hal Finney
impact. So if
you are putting off some happiness, do it today, don't procrastinate.
(Of course, you get much the same result in a non-multiverse model,
where putting off a reward makes you risk dying before you get to
experience it.)
Hal Finney
to be universes containing observers.
Hal Finney
is this: given that you
find yourself in this circumstances, is this fact *evidence* for the
truth of the QTI? In other words, should people who find themselves
extremely old through miraculous circumstances take it as more likely
that the QTI is true?
Hal Finney
so not be reversible for the same reason.
If correct, would [my Model,Comp] be observationally verified?
Hal
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, sen
Hi everyone:
Unfortunately I have been very ill for the last 15 months or so.
I am working on this project again and hope to post soon.
Hal Ruhl
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of auxon
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 3
Hello Everyone:
Just a check of my new email account so I can resume participation.
Hal
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to every
601 - 644 of 644 matches
Mail list logo
