Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
There are many ways to escape from this scenario. If you are Tookie, you
will find yourself shunted into increasingly less likely situations: not
being caught in the first place; being caught but not being found
guilty; being sentenced to death but getting off on
Saibal Mitra wrote:
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
Le 16-déc.-05, à 16:49, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
It may be easy to find logical flaws in the above credo, but I maintain that it is so deeply ingrained in each of us that it would be very difficult to overcome, except perhaps on the intellectual level.
OK but that would not make sense.
.
- 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
Saibal Mitra writes:
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
)?
See you tomorrow,
Bruno
- 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
Le 14-déc.-05, à 01:34, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
In the multiverse, only other people end up in dead ends. Although
from a third person perspective every entity in the multiverse could
be said to exist only transiently because at every point of an
entity's history we can say that there
Le Vendredi 16 Décembre 2005 02:18, vous avez écrit :
This is true, but you can only experience being one person at a time.
In fact I'd say I can only experience being me ;) If I experienced being
another person I wouldn't be I.
When
I contemplate what may happen to me tomorrow, I have to
Le 14-déc.-05, à 01:34, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
In the multiverse, only other people end up in dead ends. Although
from a third person perspective every entity in the multiverse could
be said to exist only transiently because at every point of an
entity's history we can say that there
Quentin Anciaux writes:
Hi Jesse,
unless you are willing to say that white rabbit universes have a
lower absolute measure than stable-laws-of-nature universes, you have no
justification for expecting that you are unlikely to experience such
events
in your future.
Jesse
You have no
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
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
- 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
Le 13-déc.-05, à 02:07, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
From the third person perspective, the annihilation of the 10^100
copies
could be seen as 10^100 dead ends. (In fact, when I originally
proposed this experiment, Hal Finney thought it represented the
ultimate in mass murder.) If I were
Le 12-déc.-05, à 19:37, George Levy a écrit :
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
In addition to the above arguments, consider the problem from the
point of view of the subject. If multiple copies of a person are
created and run in parallel for a period, what difference does this
make to his
Le 12-déc.-05, à 18:07, Tom ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) a écrit :
In response to Stathis' thought experiment, to speak of an experiment
being set up in a certain way is to base probabilities on an
irrelevant subset of the whole, at least if the multiverse
hypothesis is true. In the Plenitude,
Stathis wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
In response to Stathis' thought experiment, to speak of an experiment
being
set up in a certain way is to base probabilities on an irrelevant
subset of the whole, at least if the multiverse hypothesis is true.
In the
Plenitude, there are an additional
Bruno Marchal wrote:
we are conscious only because we belong to a continuum of infinite
never ending stories ...
...that's what the lobian machine's guardian angel G* says about
that: true and strictly unbelievable.
Bruno
Since you agree that the number of histories is on a continuum, you
The reason why you don't buy lottery tickets could just as easily be
explained in a single universe.
I short-changed my argument. I should've said, The reason why you
don't buy lottery tickets can only be explained in a single universe.
Tom Caylor
Tom Caylor wrote:
The reason why you don't buy lottery tickets could just as easily be
explained in a single universe.
I short-changed my argument. I should've said, The reason why you don't
buy lottery tickets can only be explained in a single universe.
Tom Caylor
If you don't
Jesse wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
The reason why you don't buy lottery tickets could just as easily be
explained in a single universe.
I short-changed my argument. I should've said, The reason why you
don't buy lottery tickets can only be explained in a single
universe.
Tom Caylor
The white rabbit problem is a problem only for multiverse believers.
By the way, thanks for the reference to rabbits. It caused a
rabbit-repellent ad to appear in the margin of the archive. It is
lemon-scented (and another one is fox-scented!) and this will be more
pleasant for me than
Tom Caylor writes:
It seems to me that as soon as we talk about measure, it is equivalent to
talking about one (physical!) universe. This is similar to your George
Levy's taking the ratio of the lengths of two line segments. You don't
need a multiverse to do that. I think that talking of
In the multiverse, only other people end up in dead ends. Although from a
third person perspective every entity in the multiverse could be said to
exist only transiently because at every point of an entity's history we can
say that there sprouts a dead end branch of zero extent, from a first
George Levy:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
we are conscious only because we belong to a continuum of infinite never
ending stories ...
...that's what the lobian machine's guardian angel G* says about that:
true and strictly unbelievable.
Bruno
Since you agree that the number of histories is on a
George Levy wrote:
Jesse Mazer wrote:
George Levy:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
we are conscious only because we belong to a continuum of infinite
never ending stories ...
...that's what the lobian machine's guardian angel G* says about
that: true and strictly unbelievable.
Bruno
Since you
Le 11-déc.-05, à 11:58, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
You find yourself alone in a room with a light that alternates
red/green with a period of one minute. A letter in the room informs
you that every other minute, 10^100 copies of you are created and run
in parallel for one minute, then shut
Bruno wrote:
Le 11-déc.-05, à 11:58, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
You find yourself alone in a room with a light that alternates
red/green with a period of one minute. A letter in the room informs
you that every other minute, 10^100 copies of you are created and run
in parallel for one
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
In addition to the above arguments, consider the problem
from the point of view of the subject. If multiple copies of a person
are created and run in parallel for a period, what difference does this
make to his experience? It seems to me that there is no test or
From the third person perspective, the annihilation of the 10^100 copies
could be seen as 10^100 dead ends. (In fact, when I originally proposed this
experiment, Hal Finney thought it represented the ultimate in mass murder.)
If I were one of the 10^100, however, I wouldn't be worried in the
Tom Caylor writes:
In response to Stathis' thought experiment, to speak of an experiment being
set up in a certain way is to base probabilities on an irrelevant
subset of the whole, at least if the multiverse hypothesis is true. In the
Plenitude, there are an additional 10^100 copies still
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 10-déc.-05, à 13:24, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
In addition to the above arguments, consider the problem from the point of
view of the subject. If multiple copies of a person are created and run in
parallel for a period, what difference does this make to his
George Levy writes:
Hi Quentin, Stathis, Bruno
It all depends how you see the plenitude, OMs and the branching. Is
consciousness like a traveller in a network of roads traversing the
plenitude, some roads branching some roads merging?
If yes then you could have several independent
Le 10-déc.-05, à 13:24, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
In addition to the above arguments, consider the problem from the
point of view of the subject. If multiple copies of a person are
created and run in parallel for a period, what difference does this
make to his experience? It seems to me
Le 09-déc.-05, à 22:44, George Levy a écrit :
The crux of the matter is the concept of indistinguishability: whether you consider two identical persons (OMs) occupying two identical universes the same person (point on the road). It is clear that if you consider the problem from the information
Le 08-déc.-05, à 22:21, George Levy a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 05-déc.-05, à 02:46, Saibal Mitra a écrit :
I still think that if you double everything and then annihilate only the
doubled person, the probability will be 1.
Actually I agree with this.
So far we have been talking
Hi Quentin, Stathis, Bruno
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Hi Georges,
if you start from OMs as basic, then a branch is a set of OMs (only
"consistent"/ordered set ?). Then it means a branch is unique. Some part of
different branches could overlap, but as I don't understand what could be an
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 05-dc.-05, 02:46, Saibal Mitra a crit :
I still think that if you double everything
and then annihilate only the
doubled person, the probability will be 1.
Actually I agree with this.
So far we have been talking about
Le 05-déc.-05, à 02:46, Saibal Mitra a écrit :
I still think that if you double everything and then annihilate only
the
doubled person, the probability will be 1.
Actually I agree with this.
This is simply a consequence of
using the absolute measure.
Ah ? I am not sure this
Le 03-déc.-05, à 11:12, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 01-déc.-05, à 07:17, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Why does an OM need to contain so much information to link it to
other OMs making up a person? [the complete message is below].
I am not sure I understand.
Hi Stathis,
Hi Bruno,
I replied to the first part of your post earlier, but it took a bit
more time to digest the rest. For what it is worth, I have included my
thinking out loud below.
Thanks for replying, and thanks for authorizing me to comment online.
Mhh I know
Bruno Marchal wrote:
...
What could this mean in a real world example?
Take W as the set of places in Brussels. Take R to be accessible by
walking in a finite number of foot steps. Then each places at Brussels
is accessible from itself, giving that you can access it with zero
steps, or
Le 05-déc.-05, à 22:49, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 03:58:20PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Well at least this isn't a problem of translation. But I still have
difficulty in understanding why Pp=Bp -B-p should be translated
into
English as to bet on p (or for that
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 03:58:20PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Well at least this isn't a problem of translation. But I still have
difficulty in understanding why Pp=Bp -B-p should be translated into
English as to bet on p (or for that matter pourquoi on devrait
le traduire par a parier a
I'm perhaps missing something here. In a no-collapse interpretation of QM,
doesn't everything double every moment? So, if only one of the doubled
versions of a person is annihilated, doesn't this mean the probability of
survival is 1?
Although the plenitude is timeless, containing all
Hi Saibal,
Le Samedi 3 Décembre 2005 02:15, Saibal Mitra a écrit :
Correction, I seem to have misunderstood Statis' set up. If you really
create a new world and then create and kill the person there then the
probability of survival is 1. This is different from quantum mechanical
branch
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 03:39:58PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Observation is implicitly defined here by measurement capable of
selecting alternatives on which we are able to bet (or to gamble ?).
The french word is parier.
Well at least this isn't a problem of translation. But I still
Immortality and Information Flow
Well, I did actually intend my example to be analogous to the Tegmark QS
experiment. Are you saying that if there is only one world and magically
an
identical, separate world comes into being this is fundamentally different
to what happens in quantum branch
Immortality and Information Flow
Well, I did actually intend my example to be analogous to the Tegmark QS
experiment. Are you saying that if there is only one world and magically
an
identical, separate world comes into being this is fundamentally
different
to what happens in quantum branch
]
To: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 02:25 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
The answer must be a) because (and here I disagree with Jesse), all that
exists
Saibal Mitra wrote:
Correction, I seem to have misunderstood Statis' set up. If you really
create a new world and then create and kill the person there then the
probability of survival is 1. This is different from quantum mechanical
branch splitting.
To see this, consider first what would
Why does an OM need to contain so much information to link it to other OMs
making up a person? I certainly don't spend every waking moment reminding
myself of who I am, let alone going over my entire past history, and I still
think all my thoughts are my thoughts. I don't think that the fact
- 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
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes:
[quoting Saibal Mitra]
There exists an observer moment representing you at N seconds, at N + 4
seconds and at all possible other states. They all ''just exist'' in the
plenitude, as Stathis wrote. The OM representing you at N + 4 has the
memory
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I was thinking of people who accept some ensemble theory such as MWI, but
don't believe in QTI. I must admit, I find it difficult to understand how
even a dualist might justify (a) as being correct. Would anyone care to
help?
What do you think of my argument
Le Samedi 26 Novembre 2005 18:47, Jesse Mazer a écrit :
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I was thinking of people who accept some ensemble theory such as MWI, but
don't believe in QTI. I must admit, I find it difficult to understand how
even a dualist might justify (a) as being correct. Would anyone
Saibal wrote:
The answer must be a) because (and here I disagree with
Jesse), all that exists is an ensemble of isolated observer
moments. The future, the past, alternative histories, etc.
they all exist in a symmetrical way. It don't see how some
states can be more ''real'' than other
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou writes:
If on the basis of a coin toss the world splits, and in one branch I
am instantaneously killed while in the other I continue living, there
are several possible ways this might be interpreted from the 1st
person viewpoint:
(a) Pr(I
Please disregard previous post. The b and c cases were inverted.
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou writes:
If on the basis of a coin toss the world splits, and in one branch I
am instantaneously killed while in the other I continue living, there
are several possible ways this
Bruno Marchal writes:
If on the basis of a coin toss the world splits, and in one branch I am
instantaneously killed while in the other I continue living, there are
several possible ways this might be interpreted from the 1st person
viewpoint:
(a) Pr(I live) = Pr(I die) = 0.5
I hope
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 04:22:58PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Now observation and knowledge are defined in the logics of
self-reference, i.e. by transformation of G and G*, and so are each
multiplied by two. Actually and amazingly for the knower (the first
person) G and G* give the same
: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Everything-List List everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
snip
Well, actually I hope it will gives the qubits.
I am not contesting the Everett-Hartle
Le 15-nov.-05, à 10:56, Brian Scurfield a écrit :
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It has often been pointed out on this list that universes are those
parts of the multiverse down which information flows. So Harry
Potter universes are not in fact universes.
63 matches
Mail list logo
