http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3825
I've written up a small article about the idea that you could end up in a
different sector of the multiverse by selective memory erasure. I had
written about that possibility a long time ago on this list, but now I've
made the argument more rigorous.
to the Saibal Mitra backtracking procedure (in
immortality discussions). I will take a further look on your paper.
If valid, it should work in the comp frame. Amnesia could lead you to
the original singularity, which could be a kind of blind spot of
universal consciousness, except that with comp
, 3/10/09, Saibal Mitra smi...@zeelandnet.nl wrote:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3825
I've written up a small article about the idea that you could end up in a
different sector of the multiverse by selective memory erasure. I had
written about that possibility a long time ago on this list, but now
of a new measurement is not pre-determined in either case.
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 08:06 PM
Subject: Re: Changing the past by forgetting
Saibal Mitra wrote:
If we consider measuring
I just send a posting to the FOR list about my article. I did not have the
time to reply to everyone on this list previously. Reading the old
discussion again, I think that it was suggested that the exact quantum
states matter, but they don't. It was only used to illustrate the thought
experiment
: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 07:27 PM
Subject: Re: Changing the past by forgetting
Accepting QM without collapse, I am not sure you can dump your memory
in the environment in any truly irreversible way.
Bruno
On 21 Apr 2009, at 15:22, Saibal Mitra wrote:
Yes, I agree, and that's then why
uncompoutable numbers, non countable sets etc. don't exist in first
order logic, see here:
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/logsys/low-skol.htm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ah the famous Juergen Schmidhuber! :)
Is the universe a computer. Well, if you define 'universe' to
The listserver was experiencing a lot of computer pain recently and
that prevented it from function normally :)
John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This is the 3rd time I send a 'test' to myself. I receive list-post on this
gmail address, but my mail does not show up, neither here nor on the
The only connection I can think of is as follows. For any given religious
text there should exist a universe which best fits those text.
Saibal
- Original Message -
From: Wei Dai [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 11:55 PM
Subject:
If it feels bafflement and confusion, then surely it is conscious :)
An AI that takes information from books might experience similar qualia we
can experience. The AI will be programmed to do certain tasks and it must
thus have a notion of what it is doing is ok., not ok, or completely wrong.
1) looks better because there is no unambiguous definition of next.
However, I don't understand the shared by everyone part. Different
persons are different programs who cannot exactly represent the
observer moment of me.
As I see it, an observer moment is a snapshot of the universe taken by
in a universe described by the
Standard Model.
citeren Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Saibal Mitra wrote:
1) looks better because there is no unambiguous definition of next.
However, I don't understand the shared by everyone part. Different
persons are different programs who cannot exactly represent
The best thing you could do is to freeze your brain. I think that will
preserve the connections between the neurons, although the cells will be
destroyed.
This will make it easier for a future civilization to regenerate you
digitally
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Citeren nichomachus [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In the description of the quantum immortality gedanken experiment, a
physicist rigs an automatic rifle to a geiger counter to fire into him
upon the detection of an atomic decay event from a bit of radioactive
material. If the many worlds hypothesis is
Citeren nichomachus [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In the description of the quantum immortality gedanken experiment, a
physicist rigs an automatic rifle to a geiger counter to fire into him
upon the detection of an atomic decay event from a bit of radioactive
material. If the many worlds hypothesis is
the size of the galaxy would still be me.
:)
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 03:24 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 02:22:23AM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote
.
Saibal
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 03:24 PM
Subject: Re: objections to QTI
Le 01-juin-05, à 15:00, Saibal Mitra a écrit
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 05:00 AM
Subject: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...
Stephen Paul King writes:
I really do not want to be a stick-in-the-mud here, but what do we
base
the
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 08:10 PM
Subject: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
To apply Wei's method, first we need to get serious about what is an OM.
We need a formal model and
- Original Message -
From: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 07:53 PM
Subject: RE: where did the Big Bang come from?
Norman Samish wrote:
Norman Samish wrote:
And where did this mysterious Big Bang
I think one should define an observer moment as the instantaneous
description of the human brain. I.e. the minimum amount of information you
need to simulate the brain of a observer. This description changes over time
due to interactions with the environment. Even if there were no interactions
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 02:23 PM
Subject: RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 02:23 PM
Subject: RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 02:43 AM
Subject: RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 06:41 PM
Subject: RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 10
Because no such thing as free will exists one has to consider three
different universes in which the three different choices are made. The three
universes will have comparable measures. The antropic factor of 10^100 will
then dominate and will cause the observer to find himself having made choice
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 08:06 AM
Subject: Re: more torture
Saibal Mitra writes:
Because no such thing as free will exists one has to consider three
different
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 05:26 PM
Subject: Re: more torture
Saibal Mitra writes:
Because no such thing as free will exists one has to consider three
You ca still create two identical systems starting from another system. E.g.
in stimulated emission two photons are created in the same state. Another
example is a Bose Einstein condensate, in which all the atoms are in the
same state.
Note that you can still teleport an unknown quantum state
- Original Message -
From: Jonathan Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Russell Standish' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'EverythingList' everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 09:52 PM
Subject: Reference class (was dualism and the DA)
Russell Standish wrote:
(JC) If you want to
- Original Message -
From: Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 11:37 PM
Subject: Measure, Doomsday argument
Hi everyone,
I have some questions about measure...
As I understand the DA, it is based on conditionnal
I agree with the notion of OMs as events in some suitably chosen space.
Observers are defined by the programs that generate them. If we identify
universes with programs then observers are just embedded universes. An
observer moment is just a qualia experienced by the observer, which is just
an
Godfrey Kurtz wrote
More specifically: I believe QM puts a big kabosh into any non-quantum
mechanistic view of the physical world. If you
don't get that, than maybe you don't get a lot of other things, Bruno.
Sorry if this sounds contemptuous. It is meant
to be.
There aren't many
Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:11:30 +0200
Subject: Re: subjective reality
Godfrey Kurtz wrote
More specifically: I believe QM puts a big kabosh into any
non-quantum
this winter for the Colemanfest and he had the most fabulous
animations...
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 01:34:19
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508429
Tegmark's essay was not well received (perhaps Godfrey didn't like it? :-) )
How did it all begin?
Authors: Max Tegmark
Comments: 6 pages, 6 figs, essay for 2005 Young Scholars Competition in
honor of Charles Townes; received Dishonorable Mention
How did
Hi Norman,
I have no idea why it received a dishonorable mention. It could be because
some physicists/cosmologists don't like anthropic reasoning.
- Original Message -
From: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent
-
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 7:10 AM
Subject: Re: subjective reality
Hi Godfrey,
It is not clear to me why one would impose constraints such as locality
etc.
here
Hi Norman,
A TM in our universe can simulate you living in a virtual universe. If your
universe is described by the same laws of physics as ours, then most
physicists believe that the TM would have to work in a nonlocal way from
your perspective.
Is this a problem? I don't think so, because the
with the rest of the (real) universe this
doesn't qualify as a ''bona fide'' simulation.
Saibal
- Original Message -
From: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 05:48 AM
Subject: Re: What Computationalism is and what
This means that beta decay proves your model wrong.
- Original Message -
From: John Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Stephen Paul King' [EMAIL PROTECTED];
everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 12:35 AM
Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea
Thanks for the paper relating to
There are a lot of experiments that have detected neutrinos and verified
their properties (which are completely different from photons).
- Original Message -
From: John Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Saibal Mitra' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, October 10
different from photons. I understand neutrinos travel at
the
speed of light. Only photons travel at the speed of light.
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 4:30 PM
To: John Ross; everything-list@eskimo.com
Faster than light effects lead to violations of causality. There are very
stringent experimental constraints against such effects.
- Original Message -
From: John Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Russell Standish' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'Stephen Paul King' [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Since we are discussing neutrinos, I thought it is fun to mention antropic
constraints on neutrino masses derived by Tegmark, see here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0304536
Anthropic predictions for neutrino masses
Authors: Max Tegmark (MIT), Alexander Vilenkin (Tufts), Levon Pogosian
(Tufts)
Hal gives the correct explanation of what's going on. In general, all you
have to do to analyze the problem is to consider all contributions to a
particular state and add up the amplitudes. The absolute value squared of
the amplitude gives the probability, which may or may not contain an
Well, as you can see here:
http://cabtep5.cnea.gov.ar/particulas/daniel/curri/curreng.html
He isn't very experienced yet. I know of some experienced professors of
have made worse mistakes :)
So, what goes wrong? Well, you don't get an interference pattern at one end
even if you don't detect
- Original Message -
From: Jonathan Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
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
the person not been
killed. Then his measure would have doubled. But because he is killed in one
of the two copies of Earth, his measure stays the same. In a quantum suicide
experiment his measure would be reduced by a factor two.
- Original Message -
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED
splitting? It seems to me that in both
cases the relative measure of everything in the world stays the same, even
though in absolute terms there is double of everything.
Stathis Papaioannou
Saibal Mitra writes:
Correction, I seem to have misunderstood Statis' set up. If you really
create
http://www.wolframscience.com/conference/2006/outline.html
- 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,
.
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 01:25 PM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
Le 15-déc.-05, à 03:04, Saibal Mitra a écrit :
To me
heory must be highly falsifiable, otherwise
we are just going back to the days of Scholastic debates...
http://clublet.com/why?AngelsOnTheHeadsOfPins
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From:
Saibal Mitra
To: Stephen Paul King ; every
How would an observer know he is living in a universe in which information
is lost? Information loss means that time evolution can map two different
initial states to the same final state. The observer in the final state thus
cannot know that information really has been lost.
- Original
-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 03:22 AM
Subject: Re: why can't we erase information?
Saibal Mitra wrote:
How would an observer know he is living in a universe in which
information
is lost? Information loss means that time evolution can map two different
initial states
- Original Message -
From: Wei Dai [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 01:46 AM
Subject: Re: why can't we erase information?
Saibal Mitra wrote:
How would an observer know he is living in a universe in which
information
is lost
This thread is still alive! It seems that information can't be erased in
this thread either :)
I think that information can't be erased because of the way time is (or
should be) defined. If you take the observer moment approach to the
multiverse, then you have to define a notion of time. That
Einstein seems to have believed in ''immortal observer moments''.
In a BBC documentary about time it was mentioned that Einstein consoled a
friend whose son had died in a tragic accident by saying that relativity
suggests that the past and the future are as real as the present.
Saibal
From: Patrick Leahy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: Smullyan Shmullyan, give me a real example
On Fri, 12 May 2006, Saibal Mitra wrote:
Einstein seems to have believed in ''immortal observer moments''.
In a BBC
There must exist a ''high level'' program that specifies a person in terms
of qualia. These qualia are ultimately defined by the way neurons are
connected, but you could also think of persons in terms of the high-level
algorithm, instead of the ''machine language'' level algorithm specified by
ambience - in a wider view: of
the
totality, with interction back and forth with all the changes that go on?
Are you really interested only in the dance of those silly neurons?
John M
- Original Message -
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent
I don't understand why you consider the measures of the programs that do the
simulations. The ''real'' measure should be derived from the algorithmic
complexity of the laws of physics that describe how the computers/brains
work. If you know for certain that a computation will be performed in this
.
Saibal
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 08:49 AM
Subject: Re: Teleportation thought experiment and UD+ASSA
Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't understand why you consider
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 09:23 AM
Subject: Re: A calculus of personal identity
Brent Meeker writes:
I think it is one of the most profound things about consciousness
that
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 08:28 AM
Subject: Re: Interested in thoughts on this excerpt from Martin Rees
The real problem is not just that it is a philosophical speculation,
it is that
I think I can prove that QTI as intepreted in this list is false, I'll post
the proof in a new thread.
The only version of QTI that makes sense to me is this:
All possible states exist out there in the multiverse. The observer
moments are timeless objects so, in a certain sense, QTI is true. But
QTI in the way defined in this list contradicts quantum mechanics. The
observable part of the universe can only be in a finite number of quantum
states. So, it can only harbor a finite number of observer moments or
experiences a person can have, see here for details:
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 5:47 AM
Subject: Re: Proof that QTI is false
Saibal Mitra wrote:
QTI in the way defined in this list contradicts quantum mechanics. The
observable
Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:31 AM
Subject: Re: Proof that QTI is false
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 11:58:14PM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote:
QTI in the way defined in this list contradicts quantum mechanics. The
observable part
Bruno wrote:
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: woensdag 29 maart 2000 11:40
Onderwerp: Re: Measure of the prisoner
Suppose that the simulated prisoner is a ``digital ´´ copy of a real
Saibal Mitra wrote
Instead of the previously discussed suicide
experiments to test variousversions of many-worlds theories, one might
consider a different approach.
By deleting certain sectors of one's memory one
should be able to travelto different branches of the multiverse. Suppose you
are diagnosed with
Recently an article appeared on the Los Alamos archive that
explains how, for certain systems, dynamics can be derived from probabilistic
arguments alone. I think that the formalism developed in the article can be
generalised, and used to explain the physical laws we observe without
Wei Dai wrote:
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 01:13:35PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It may be impossible to construct such a machine in our universe, but
can we
achieve the same results by slowing down the consciousness of the
observer
observing a conventional computer? In other words,
Wei Dai wrote:
This experiment is not a game, since the action of each participant only
affects his or her own payoff, and not the payoff of the other player.
Actually you can do this with just one participant, and maybe that will
make the paradoxical nature of anthropic reasoning clearer.
Bruno, what did you expect? You should expect Jacques to be a typical
American. You know how Americans on opposite sides of an issue tend to
behave. E.g. recounting of votes in Florida, pro life versus pro choice...
Unthinkable here in Europe!
Anyway, there is nothing wrong with Jacques, he is
Jacques Mallah wrote:
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are different versions of QTI (let's not call it FIN).
I'm certainly not going to call it a theory. Doing so lends it an a
priori aura of legitimacy. Words mean things, as Newt Gingrich once said
in
one of his smarter
back.
Saibal
John Mikes wrote:
OK, Saibal Mitra, you won. Are you happy
now? Can you ever go back?
John Mikes
Suppose that every week I subject myself to a suicide
experiment. I usea suicide machineto win that weeks lottery.
After a few years I will have won hundreds
I see that according to you Hal Ruhl qualifies as a copy of Hal Finney.
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: jamikes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: zondag 9 september 2001 15:06
Onderwerp: Immortality
Try Foundation of Physics Letters!
Saibal
Russel wrote:
As many of you are aware, I have been attempting to publish Why
Occams Razor for about 18 months now. In September, it will have been
two years since I wrote the paper. I first tried Phys Rev - which
rejected it on editorial policy
that quantum suicide actually works (as Larry Niven
said
about the matter transmitter which destroys you at point A and creates a
perfect
copy at point B, I wouldn't ride in the damn thing).
Charles
- Original Message -
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything [EMAIL PROTECTED
Russel wrote:
Saibal Mitra wrote:
Hal wrote:
One of the concepts we have explored is that all universes and hence
all minds exist, but that some observer-moments have greater measure
than others. This may help to explain why we observe the kind of
universe
that we do
?
Cheers
Saibal Mitra wrote:
The total number of states a certain person can be in is bounded. One
might argue that according to quantum mechanics a certain person will always
find himself alive, but all that means is that that person will always find
himself in one out
Charles Goodwin wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
As I have written before, a person is just a computation being
implemented
somewhere. Suppose that the person has discovered that he suffers from a
terminal ilness and he dies
Questions 1) and 1a) have been answered in this article:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/math-ph/0008018
Saibal
Joel wrote:
Bruno and fellow Everythingers...
Sorry I've been disconnected for a while. I think Bruno's last message
has
really helped me to understand the Universal Dovetailer.
George Levy wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Example: a never ending universe history h is computed by a finite
nonhalting program p. To simulate randomness and noise etc, p invokes a
short pseudorandom generator subroutine q which also never halts. The
n-th pseudorandom event of
A proper calculation using Bayes' theorem is missing in the article. The
conclusion is false.
E.g. let's assume that (2) and (3) are false. So, we know with almost 100%
certainty that we are not living in a simulation, and we know with almost
100% certainty that a posthuman civilization is going
All arrangemets are equally likely, but the probability is, of course, zero.
So with probability one you don't get only zeros.
There is a theorem that says that any finite arbitrary configuration will
appear an infinite number of times in an infinite random sequence with
probability one.
Saibal
Hal Finney wrote:
Saibal writes:
According to the conventional QTI, not only do you live forever, you can
also never forget anything. I don't believe this because I know for a
fact that I have forgotten quite a lot of things that have happened a
long time ago.
Right, but to make the
Correction: the journal is called Foundations of
Physics.
Hal Finney wrote:
Juergen Schmidhuber writes:
But there is no uniform prior over all programs!
Just like there is no uniform prior over the integers.
To see this, just try to write one down.
I think there is. Given a program of length l, the prior probability
is 2^(-l). (That is 2 to
You'll have to ask Bruno, because that's what he wrote.
On 01-Jun-01, Saibal Mitra wrote:
BTW, do you know that Godel wrote a formalisation in the modal logic
system S5 of St. Anselm proof of the existence of God? (I'm not sure
there is any evidence that Godel takes his proof seriously
Joel wrote:
This may be true, but has anyone here (or anywhere else) ever
checked to see that we can't program the universe exactly with
simple algorithms?
I think this is something new. (Check out what Stephen Wolfram has
been doing lately: http://www.wolframscience.com)
Everyone's
Jacques Mallah wrote:
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jacques Mallah wrote:
`` I have repeated pointed out the obvious consequence that if that
were
true, then a typical observer would find himself to be much older than
the
apparent lifetime of his species would allow; the fact
Bruno wrote:
Saibal Mitra wrote:
Now there exists a class of universes, with a very low measure, in
which the laws of physics are such that I am guaranteed to win. The
probability that I find myself in such a universe will have increased
substantially after each experiment. After a few
? This
doesn't appear to be related to the problem of being required to
forget how old you if you are immortal in a physical human sense.
Cheers
Saibal Mitra wrote:
According to the conventional QTI, not only do you live forever, you can
=
also never forget anything. I don't believe this because I
Jacques Mallah wrote:
`` I have repeated pointed out the obvious consequence
that if that were true, then a typical observer would find himself to be
much older than the apparent lifetime of his species would allow; the fact
that you do not find yourself so old gives their hypothesis a
Charles Goodwin wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On the other hand I can't see how FIN is supposed to work, either. I
*think* the argument runs something like this...
Even if you have just had, say, an atom bomb dropped on you, there's
survive
without memory loss, other branches are not considered. This leads to the
paradox that you should experience yourself being infinitely old etc..
Saibal
Charles Goodwin wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
In the case of a person
Bruno wrote:
Saibal wrote: (complete message below for the FORers)
Can't we prove that stars (and for that matter anything we observe)
exist
in at least some universes?
But does some universes exists ? To tell you frankly I have a problem
with
the word universe. I guess you take it as
1 - 100 of 194 matches
Mail list logo
