RE: many worlds theory of immortality

Jesse Mazer writes: [Stathis] There are two separate probabilities to consider here. One is the probability (3/4, as you show) that civilization will never break down if implemented on a computer with behaviour as specified above. The other is the probability that the actual hardware will work a

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

Brent Meeker wrote: [Stathis] >Your body slowly disintegrates and is (approximately) reconstructed atom by >atom, so you don't notice a discontinuity, and it doesn't hurt. If the >timing and order of the process were changed, so that your body is destroyed >in one operation and a copy reconstruc

Re: many worlds theory of immortality

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: "... It will not do to say straight out, "I don't like ABC, therefore I will say ABC does not exist"-" It was wrong that I entered this type of discussion about superstitious fables, unsubstantiated 3rd pers. statements, like e.g. religious belief systems. However Stathis

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Jesse Mazer writes: [Stathis] There are two separate probabilities to consider here. One is the probability (3/4, as you show) that civilization will never break down if implemented on a computer with behaviour as specified above. The other is the probability that the

Re: "Free Will Theorem"

On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 06:01:19PM -0400, John M wrote: > Russell, I hate to discuss sci-fi (the daemon), but you wrote: > "The daemon computes the future - not just predicts or guesses, but > computes it exactly. " > So in your opinion the daemon 'knows' (= applies for this exact comp) all > the

Re: "Free Will Theorem"

On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 05:14:42PM -0700, Pete Carlton wrote: > On Apr 11, 2005, at 11:11 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > > > I'm dealing with these questions in an artificial life system - > > Tierra > > to be precise. I have compared the original Tierra code, with one > > in > > which the ran

Re: "Free Will Theorem"

On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 05:45:58PM -0700, "Hal Finney" wrote: > On Apr 11, 2005, at 11:11 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > > I'm dealing with these questions in an artificial life system - Tierra > > to be precise. I have compared the original Tierra code, with one in > > which the random no. generato

Is symmetry the key?

It seems that it is meaningless to talk about an absolute measure on the ensembles for the multiverse. However, we can make real progress by simply appealing to principles of symmetry. For example, when an atom emits a photon it seems reasonable to assume there is 50/50 chance of measuring "up"

Copenhagen Interpretation

This group tends to relate concepts back to MWI. Perhaps CI is a useful way to think as well... At a given point in time, a thinking entity is only aware of a small subset of its surroundings. This suggests an ensemble of all mathematical possibilities that are consistent with that mind in that

Using QTI to generate algorithms

Consider the following experiment... On a computer we generate a million numbers at random, and we write a program that tests whether the numbers are stored in ascending order, and if not causes the experimenter to be killed. A device that measures the polarisation of photons from a light source

Re: Using QTI to generate algorithms

David Barrett-Lennard writes: > On a computer we generate a million numbers at random, and we write a > program that tests whether the numbers are stored in ascending order, and if > not causes the experimenter to be killed. > ... > An interesting question is whether there will be a tendency to dis

How much of this is really science?

>From "A Different Universe" by Robert Laughlin (winner of the Nobel Prize in physics in 1998): "Greek creation myths satirize many things in modern life, particularly cosmological theories.  Exploding things, such as dynamite or the big bang, are unstable.  Theories of explosions, including t

Does Colin Bruce have the answer to the size of the multiverse?

I bought his book "Schrodinger's Rabbits" yesterday, and have been skipping around through it. Some of you may recall that I have questioned if there is any theoretical way we could estimate the size of the multiverse if it is not a continuum. I had suggested the size may be related to the n

Re: How much of this is really science?

On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 10:18:13PM -0400, danny mayes wrote: > > Is Laughlin right that so many of these topics we discuss are beyond the > reach of "real" science? Should certain questions be put on hold until > science/technology has caught up with our ability to test questions? > I don't kno

Re: Is symmetry the key?

Le 20-avr.-05, à 01:56, David Barrett-Lennard a écrit : It is interesting and perhaps no coincidence that the best way to understand physics is to focus attention on the underlying principles of symmetry, invariance and equivalence. Yes but why? Answer: comp makes it necessary; even in a testable