Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

[Brent Meeker]

When one's mind boggles on hearing a term, like "infinite" that means 
you have no clear understanding of it and if you use the term you 
literally don't know what you're talking about.  I think the infinity of 
the integers is clear enough, and the infinity of the reals, and even 
the infinity of square integrable functions (a Hilbert space).  But when 
someone talks about infinitely many infinite universes coming into being 
at an infinite number of moments within a finite duration - as is 
implied by in some relative state interpretations of QM - then I wonder 
if they know what they're talking about.


Brent

On 5/27/2010 12:43 PM, John Mikes wrote:

/*Stathis wrote:*/
/*You may as well claim that an infinite single universe _should not 
exist_ because it boggles the human mind.*/


**
/*Stathis Papaioannou*/
*/---/*
We are talking *"think of"* rather than* 'exist'* - unless you 
consider it as 'existing in someones boggled mind" as an idea (boggled 
thought, nightmare).

John M

On 5/25/10, *Michael Gough* <mailto:innovative.engin...@gmail.com>> wrote:


The branching is occurring at every moment, so if even one set of
said parents got it on, there would be "umpteen trillons(TM)" of
copies of said individual. It has nothing to do really with the
parents at all. Once you exist, there's umpteen trillions of
copies that stem from the state of the individual at each moment
in time.

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:59 AM, m.a. mailto:marty...@bellsouth.net>> wrote:

- Original Message -
*From:* Stathis Papaioannou <mailto:stath...@gmail.com>
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
        *Sent:* Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:35 PM
*Subject:* Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"




On 20/05/2010, at 4:12 PM, "m.a." mailto:marty...@bellsouth.net>> wrote:


I may have this all wrong, but it seems to me that for
there to be umpteen trillion copies of a person there had
to be umpteen trillion (UT) copies of his parents. And
only a relatively small sub-group of those met and
cohabited at the exact moment of his/her conception. But
the same must have been true for their parents and their
parents' parents and so forth back to the primoridal
slime. And this staggering foliation of universes only
covers one specific zygote of two specific gametes. What
of all the other UT^UT combinations leading to the
creation of other individuals just on this family tree?
And what of all the other combinations and histories of
every human, animal, insect and bacterium on this planet?
Does it really make sense to assume numbers of universes
so far beyond our ability to conceive of?marty a.


You may as well claim that an infinite single universe
should not exist because it boggles the human mind.

Stathis Papaioannou
I don't know, Stathis. Somehow it seems easier for me to
conceive of ONE infinite universe than to conceive of
umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen trillion
trillion trillion^umpteen...universes. My "mind" is
obviously more limited than yours. m.a.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

[John Mikes]

*Stathis wrote:*
 *You may as well claim that an infinite single universe should not
existbecause it boggles the human mind.
*

**
*Stathis Papaioannou*
*---*
We are talking *"think of"* rather than* 'exist'* - unless you consider it
as 'existing in someones boggled mind" as an idea (boggled thought,
nightmare).
John M


On 5/25/10, Michael Gough  wrote:
>
> The branching is occurring at every moment, so if even one set of said
> parents got it on, there would be "umpteen trillons(TM)" of copies of said
> individual. It has nothing to do really with the parents at all. Once you
> exist, there's umpteen trillions of copies that stem from the state of the
> individual at each moment in time.
>
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:59 AM, m.a.  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>  - Original Message -
>> *From:* Stathis Papaioannou 
>> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
>>  *Sent:* Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:35 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 20/05/2010, at 4:12 PM, "m.a."  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>  I may have this all wrong, but it seems to me that for there to be
>> umpteen trillion copies of a person there had to be umpteen trillion (UT)
>> copies of his parents. And only a relatively small sub-group of those met
>> and cohabited at the exact moment of his/her conception. But the same must
>> have been true for their parents and their parents' parents and so forth
>> back to the primoridal slime. And this staggering foliation of universes
>> only covers one specific zygote of two specific gametes. What of all the
>> other UT^UT combinations leading to the creation of other individuals just
>> on this family tree? And what of all the other combinations and histories of
>> every human, animal, insect and bacterium on this planet? Does it really
>> make sense to assume numbers of universes so far beyond our ability to
>> conceive of?marty a.
>>
>>
>> You may as well claim that an infinite single universe should not exist
>> because it boggles the human mind.
>>
>>
>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>
>> I don't know, Stathis. Somehow it seems easier for me to conceive of ONE
>> infinite universe than to conceive of umpteen trillion trillion
>> trillion^umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen...universes. My "mind"
>> is obviously more limited than yours. m.a.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>>   --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

[Michael Gough]

The branching is occurring at every moment, so if even one set of said
parents got it on, there would be "umpteen trillons(TM)" of copies of said
individual. It has nothing to do really with the parents at all. Once you
exist, there's umpteen trillions of copies that stem from the state of the
individual at each moment in time.

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:59 AM, m.a.  wrote:

>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Stathis Papaioannou 
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:35 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"
>
>
>
>
> On 20/05/2010, at 4:12 PM, "m.a."  wrote:
>
>   I may have this all wrong, but it seems to me that for there to be
> umpteen trillion copies of a person there had to be umpteen trillion (UT)
> copies of his parents. And only a relatively small sub-group of those met
> and cohabited at the exact moment of his/her conception. But the same must
> have been true for their parents and their parents' parents and so forth
> back to the primoridal slime. And this staggering foliation of universes
> only covers one specific zygote of two specific gametes. What of all the
> other UT^UT combinations leading to the creation of other individuals just
> on this family tree? And what of all the other combinations and histories of
> every human, animal, insect and bacterium on this planet? Does it really
> make sense to assume numbers of universes so far beyond our ability to
> conceive of?marty a.
>
>
> You may as well claim that an infinite single universe should not exist
> because it boggles the human mind.
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> I don't know, Stathis. Somehow it seems easier for me to conceive of ONE
> infinite universe than to conceive of umpteen trillion trillion
> trillion^umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen...universes. My "mind"
> is obviously more limited than yours. m.a.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

[John Mikes]

I am afraid you start from the 2nd step: first you accept whatever 'we'
(humans) think as an evidence in the system we can absorb and evaluate
(explain) and then - *in the framework of that *we imagine our science.
Indeed not much more than a belief system of today.
Not too different from the so called religion, which accepts hearsay as
truth and evidence, the bible as proof and builds on such belief system. The
workings of the world are not shrinkable into such 'truth' we use as much as
we can.
The 'new evidence' - you say - that *overturns* tomorrow today's theory is
just a similar belief.
"Tentative" with a bucketful of pretension - called either scientific or
religious. Flat Earth...?

The whole idea behind my 1st post in this topic was *questioning 'evidence'
via our human restrictedness - vs the unlimit(able)ed workings of the
world*- by far not coverable by us.
We *observe* *what we can and how we can* and *explain *by *what we know*.
It was different in B.C. times, in ~1500AD, yesterday and will be different
500/5000 years from now.
And: I don't buy the nanosec as small, nature can use it as very big, and
vice versa, Brent's timespan can be a 'blinking'. Magnitude-scales are
insecure: we like our body-size median.

John Mikes




On 5/24/10, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:
>
> On 24 May 2010 23:08, John Mikes  wrote:
> > Stathis,
> >
> > you seemed bored: you jumped into assigning a bit more to my text than it
> > really contained:
> > "...saying that we can know nothing about it at all..."
> > what I did not say. I spoke about a 'hypothetical' functioning of the
> world
> > (read the 'imagining"it")
> > and it refers to how we explain 'it'  (i.e. whatever we 'got' -
> explaining
> > rightly  or wrongly).
> > Bruno assumes that we are digitalizable machines - eo ipso numbers are
> 'in'
> > for him. A religious devotee assumes that we are God's creations - with
> all
> > pertinent explanations and combinations.
> >  I assume "we don't know".
> > The 'system' what conventional sciences developed over the past millennia
> is
> > not so perfect, in spite of all the technology we developed. There are
> > faults (due to imperfections). paradoxes and - "mind boggling". We
> reached
> > such a complicated (complex?) level that nobody dares to start from anew
> in
> > looking into all the facets believed to be "true". Theories are
> sacrosanct,
> > the network is all encompassing and we still do not know a lot of the
> > basics. We assume them. And build on that.
>
> It sounds like you are talking about religion rather than science.
> Science is always tentative: a theory can be overturned tomorrow by
> new evidence, and finding such evidence is one of the most impressive
> things a scientist can do.
>
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

[Bruno Marchal]

On 23 May 2010, at 23:01, Brent Meeker wrote:


On 5/23/2010 9:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


Hi Alex, hi Quentin,

On 20 May 2010, at 15:19, Quentin Anciaux wrote:


Hi,

2010/5/20 awak 

1. Hello everyone! I'm Alex. I'm a civil engineer with an avid  
passion for
Popular Science books. I'm not a scientist, nor a native English  
speaker, so
please excuse my possible inconsistencies in both Scientific logic  
or
English grammar. Again, sorry if this question has already been  
posed.


2. I've just finished reading Russel Standish's "Theory of  
Nothing" so the
following question, concerning Quantum Immortality, has its base  
in the

information found in this book.

3. From what i understand, Functionalism and Computationalism  
implies that
my consciousness will follow all the world-lines where i live at a  
maximum
age - this considering that there might be a limit to "Quantum  
Immortality",
even though this is in contradiction with the definition of this  
concept;
for the purpose my question let's just say there might be some  
worlds where

i live until 200 yrs.

4. From Wikipedia : "Syncope (pronounced /ˈsɪŋkəpi/) is the  
medical term for
fainting, a sudden, usually temporary, loss of consciousness  
generally
caused by insufficient oxygen in the brain either through cerebral  
hypoxia
or through hypotension, but possibly for other reasons. Typical  
symptoms
progress through dizziness, clamminess of the skin, a dimming of  
vision or
greyout, possibly tinnitus, complete loss of vision, weakness of  
limbs to
physical collapse. These symptoms falling short of complete  
collapse, or a

fall down, may be referred to as a syncoptic episode."

So i take this as evidence that consciousness is not continuous.

5. MY QUESTION: "Why is this possible, for me to pass out, losing my
consciousness because of cerebral hypoxia, hypotension, or because  
i am hit

by someone, considering that Quantum Immortality implies continuous
consciousness"? More to that, shouldn't we find ourselves in  
worlds where we
don't sleep (where we are semi-conscious just like dolphins are  
because they
sleep only with half of their brains) so we don't lose  
consciousness?



Quantum immortality doesn't implies continuous consciousness... it  
just implies that there will always be a next moment. So you can  
passed out but you will eventually wake up.



It is an eternally recurring question/objection to many-worlders. I  
think Quentin is basically right, as far as we agree that QM is  
correct and decoherence does its work. With DM (Digital mechanism,  
actually used by QM) the math is awfully complex. All we can say is  
that the measure one obeys a non boolean sort of quantum logic.
IF DM and/or QM is correct the notion of normality for relatively  
computable histories (the arithmetical world-lines) makes higher  
your survive a cerebral hypoxia in the normal third person sharable  
common reality. For irreversible damages, like with alzheimer, or  
with death, the question of the first person indeterminacy is more  
complex. By a 'galois connection', you normally augment the  
possibilities, but there may be jumps, amnesia, and it may depend  
eventually on what you identify yourself with.


But the "jumps" can be arbitrarily long.  So is a jump of 10^10yrs =  
death?



By jump I was alluding to first person jumps. I do that frequently  
when doing a nap. I am conscious of being somewhere, but to sleepy to  
remember where and when. I am awake, and I know that the opening of my  
eyes will instantaneously get me back in the flux, at some precise  
point. I am always 100% sure to be at morning, in the dark, but once I  
open the eyes I remember quasi instantaneously I was doing a nap, in  
the day light.


Some jump can be amnesic jump, or memory recovery jump. It is a sudden  
change in the subjective experience. It happens also when awakening  
from a REM dream.


Concerning the UD jumps, measured in years, (with an UD time step = 1  
nanosecond, say) we have that, by first person delay invariance, those  
delays don't introduce any change in the subjective experience. Be it  
10^10yrs, or 10^(10^10)yrs, or, if you remember omega[omega]omega  
years. But keep in mind that the uncertainty measure is not on the  
states, but on the histories, and from inside they have a complex  
topology. It is not a boolean measure (accepting Theaetetus's theory  
of knowledge and its arithmetization).



Bruno



Brent



Those 'modern theological' questions are awfully difficult, but  
computer science can translate them into questions (or set of  
questions) of arithmetic (in the DM theory, that is assuming we are  
digitalizable machine).


Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 24 May 2010 23:08, John Mikes  wrote:
> Stathis,
>
> you seemed bored: you jumped into assigning a bit more to my text than it
> really contained:
> "...saying that we can know nothing about it at all..."
> what I did not say. I spoke about a 'hypothetical' functioning of the world
> (read the 'imagining"it")
> and it refers to how we explain 'it'  (i.e. whatever we 'got' - explaining
> rightly  or wrongly).
> Bruno assumes that we are digitalizable machines - eo ipso numbers are 'in'
> for him. A religious devotee assumes that we are God's creations - with all
> pertinent explanations and combinations.
>  I assume "we don't know".
> The 'system' what conventional sciences developed over the past millennia is
> not so perfect, in spite of all the technology we developed. There are
> faults (due to imperfections). paradoxes and - "mind boggling". We reached
> such a complicated (complex?) level that nobody dares to start from anew in
> looking into all the facets believed to be "true". Theories are sacrosanct,
> the network is all encompassing and we still do not know a lot of the
> basics. We assume them. And build on that.

It sounds like you are talking about religion rather than science.
Science is always tentative: a theory can be overturned tomorrow by
new evidence, and finding such evidence is one of the most impressive
things a scientist can do.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

[Brent Meeker]

On 5/24/2010 6:08 AM, John Mikes wrote:

Stathis,
you seemed bored: you jumped into assigning a bit more to my text than 
it really contained:

_/"...saying that we can know nothing about it at all..."/
_
what I did not say. I spoke about a 'hypothetical' functioning of the 
world (read the/ 'imagining*_"it")_*/
and it refers to how we explain 'it'  (i.e. whatever we 'got' - 
explaining rightly  or wrongly).
Bruno assumes that we are digitalizable machines - eo ipso numbers are 
'in' for him. A religious devotee assumes that we are God's creations 
- with all pertinent explanations and combinations.

 I assume "we don't know".
The 'system' what conventional sciences developed over the past 
millennia is not so perfect, in spite of all the technology we 
developed. There are faults (due to imperfections). paradoxes and - 
"mind boggling". We reached such a complicated (complex?) level that 
nobody dares to start from anew in looking into all the facets 
believed to be "true".


That would be a futile way to proceed.  There are too many facts and 
"looking into them" requires assuming other facts and theories.  So the 
usual procedure is to hypothesize a new theory and see if it (a) agrees 
with all the 'known' facts and (b) predicts some new fact.  If it 
disagrees with some 'known' fact then we can look into that fact to see 
if maybe it isn't as factual as we thought.  If it predicts something 
new that is found to be a fact, this counts very strongly for the new 
theory since we think it unlikely that such a prediction could pan out 
by chance.  I'd say that's the scheme Bruno is following, it's just 
difficult to infer some new facts from his theory that can be tested.


Brent

Theories are sacrosanct, the network is all encompassing and we still 
do not know a lot of the basics. We assume them. And build on that.

John M
On 5/24/10, *Stathis Papaioannou* > wrote:


On 24 May 2010 01:12, John Mikes mailto:jami...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Stathis,
> I hate to go into a 'fault-finding' trip, but what gives you the
idea that
> "the universe works" in any way WE, stupid consequences THINK OF
in any
> fashion?
> The universe (???) or anything we translate into universes in
our limited
> minds - MAY work in its own unrestricted ways and we - with our
minuscule
> knowledge, even that distorted into our (personally different)
minds, -
> imagine that hypothetical working into whatever we please.
> Then, pray, why not imagining it in ways we feel comfortable with?
> End of Sunday sermon

The universe is not obliged to be understandable to us or to conform
to our idea of what it should be like. But that is not the same as
saying that we can know nothing about it at all, or that we can
imagine it in any way we like. That would destroy any endeavour.


--
Stathis Papaioannou

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

[John Mikes]

Stathis,

you seemed bored: you jumped into assigning a bit more to my text than it
really contained:
*"...saying that we can know nothing about it at all..."
*
what I did not say. I spoke about a 'hypothetical' functioning of the world
(read the* 'imagining"it")*
and it refers to how we explain 'it'  (i.e. whatever we 'got' - explaining
rightly  or wrongly).
Bruno assumes that we are digitalizable machines - eo ipso numbers are 'in'
for him. A religious devotee assumes that we are God's creations - with all
pertinent explanations and combinations.
 I assume "we don't know".
The 'system' what conventional sciences developed over the past millennia is
not so perfect, in spite of all the technology we developed. There are
faults (due to imperfections). paradoxes and - "mind boggling". We reached
such a complicated (complex?) level that nobody dares to start from anew in
looking into all the facets believed to be "true". Theories are sacrosanct,
the network is all encompassing and we still do not know a lot of the
basics. We assume them. And build on that.

John M




On 5/24/10, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:

> On 24 May 2010 01:12, John Mikes  wrote:
> > Stathis,
> > I hate to go into a 'fault-finding' trip, but what gives you the idea
> that
> > "the universe works" in any way WE, stupid consequences THINK OF in any
> > fashion?
> > The universe (???) or anything we translate into universes in our limited
> > minds - MAY work in its own unrestricted ways and we - with our minuscule
> > knowledge, even that distorted into our (personally different) minds, -
> > imagine that hypothetical working into whatever we please.
> > Then, pray, why not imagining it in ways we feel comfortable with?
> > End of Sunday sermon
>
> The universe is not obliged to be understandable to us or to conform
> to our idea of what it should be like. But that is not the same as
> saying that we can know nothing about it at all, or that we can
> imagine it in any way we like. That would destroy any endeavour.
>
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 24 May 2010 01:12, John Mikes  wrote:
> Stathis,
> I hate to go into a 'fault-finding' trip, but what gives you the idea that
> "the universe works" in any way WE, stupid consequences THINK OF in any
> fashion?
> The universe (???) or anything we translate into universes in our limited
> minds - MAY work in its own unrestricted ways and we - with our minuscule
> knowledge, even that distorted into our (personally different) minds, -
> imagine that hypothetical working into whatever we please.
> Then, pray, why not imagining it in ways we feel comfortable with?
> End of Sunday sermon

The universe is not obliged to be understandable to us or to conform
to our idea of what it should be like. But that is not the same as
saying that we can know nothing about it at all, or that we can
imagine it in any way we like. That would destroy any endeavour.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

[awak]

Thank you for the responses.


Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
> 
> On 5/23/2010 9:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Hi Alex, hi Quentin,
>>
>> On 20 May 2010, at 15:19, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> 2010/5/20 awak mailto:mustata_a...@yahoo.com>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Hello everyone! I'm Alex. I'm a civil engineer with an avid
>>> passion for
>>> Popular Science books. I'm not a scientist, nor a native English
>>> speaker, so
>>> please excuse my possible inconsistencies in both Scientific logic
>>> or
>>> English grammar. Again, sorry if this question has already been
>>> posed.
>>>
>>> 2. I've just finished reading Russel Standish's "Theory of
>>> Nothing" so the
>>> following question, concerning Quantum Immortality, has its base
>>> in the
>>> information found in this book.
>>>
>>> 3. From what i understand, Functionalism and Computationalism
>>> implies that
>>> my consciousness will follow all the world-lines where i live at
>>> a maximum
>>> age - this considering that there might be a limit to "Quantum
>>> Immortality",
>>> even though this is in contradiction with the definition of this
>>> concept;
>>> for the purpose my question let's just say there might be some
>>> worlds where
>>> i live until 200 yrs.
>>>
>>> 4. From Wikipedia : "Syncope (pronounced /ˈsɪŋkəpi/) is the
>>> medical term for
>>> fainting, a sudden, usually temporary, loss of consciousness
>>> generally
>>> caused by insufficient oxygen in the brain either through
>>> cerebral hypoxia
>>> or through hypotension, but possibly for other reasons. Typical
>>> symptoms
>>> progress through dizziness, clamminess of the skin, a dimming of
>>> vision or
>>> greyout, possibly tinnitus, complete loss of vision, weakness of
>>> limbs to
>>> physical collapse. These symptoms falling short of complete
>>> collapse, or a
>>> fall down, may be referred to as a syncoptic episode."
>>>
>>> So i take this as evidence that consciousness is not continuous.
>>>
>>> 5. MY QUESTION: "Why is this possible, for me to pass out, losing my
>>> consciousness because of cerebral hypoxia, hypotension, or
>>> because i am hit
>>> by someone, considering that Quantum Immortality implies continuous
>>> consciousness"? More to that, shouldn't we find ourselves in
>>> worlds where we
>>> don't sleep (where we are semi-conscious just like dolphins are
>>> because they
>>> sleep only with half of their brains) so we don't lose
>>> consciousness?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Quantum immortality doesn't implies continuous consciousness... it 
>>> just implies that there will always be a next moment. So you can 
>>> passed out but you will eventually wake up.
>>
>>
>> It is an eternally recurring question/objection to many-worlders. I 
>> think Quentin is basically right, as far as we agree that QM is 
>> correct and decoherence does its work. With DM (Digital mechanism, 
>> actually used by QM) the math is awfully complex. All we can say is 
>> that the measure one obeys a non boolean sort of quantum logic.
>> IF DM and/or QM is correct the notion of normality for relatively 
>> computable histories (the arithmetical world-lines) makes higher your 
>> survive a cerebral hypoxia in the normal third person sharable common 
>> reality. For irreversible damages, like with alzheimer, or with death, 
>> the question of the first person indeterminacy is more complex. By a 
>> 'galois connection', you normally augment the possibilities, but there 
>> may be jumps, amnesia, and it may depend eventually on what you 
>> identify yourself with.
> 
> But the "jumps" can be arbitrarily long.  So is a jump of 10^10yrs =
> death?
> 
> Brent
> 
>>
>> Those 'modern theological' questions are awfully difficult, but 
>> computer science can translate them into questions (or set of 
>> questions) of arithmetic (in the DM theory, that is assuming we are 
>> digitalizable machine).
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ 
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at 
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> 
> 

That is exactly what i was going to ask.
Forget me if i am wrong, but if entangled photon

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

[Brent Meeker]

On 5/23/2010 9:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hi Alex, hi Quentin,

On 20 May 2010, at 15:19, Quentin Anciaux wrote:


Hi,

2010/5/20 awak mailto:mustata_a...@yahoo.com>>


1. Hello everyone! I'm Alex. I'm a civil engineer with an avid
passion for
Popular Science books. I'm not a scientist, nor a native English
speaker, so
please excuse my possible inconsistencies in both Scientific logic or
English grammar. Again, sorry if this question has already been
posed.

2. I've just finished reading Russel Standish's "Theory of
Nothing" so the
following question, concerning Quantum Immortality, has its base
in the
information found in this book.

3. From what i understand, Functionalism and Computationalism
implies that
my consciousness will follow all the world-lines where i live at
a maximum
age - this considering that there might be a limit to "Quantum
Immortality",
even though this is in contradiction with the definition of this
concept;
for the purpose my question let's just say there might be some
worlds where
i live until 200 yrs.

4. From Wikipedia : "Syncope (pronounced /ˈsɪŋkəpi/) is the
medical term for
fainting, a sudden, usually temporary, loss of consciousness
generally
caused by insufficient oxygen in the brain either through
cerebral hypoxia
or through hypotension, but possibly for other reasons. Typical
symptoms
progress through dizziness, clamminess of the skin, a dimming of
vision or
greyout, possibly tinnitus, complete loss of vision, weakness of
limbs to
physical collapse. These symptoms falling short of complete
collapse, or a
fall down, may be referred to as a syncoptic episode."

So i take this as evidence that consciousness is not continuous.

5. MY QUESTION: "Why is this possible, for me to pass out, losing my
consciousness because of cerebral hypoxia, hypotension, or
because i am hit
by someone, considering that Quantum Immortality implies continuous
consciousness"? More to that, shouldn't we find ourselves in
worlds where we
don't sleep (where we are semi-conscious just like dolphins are
because they
sleep only with half of their brains) so we don't lose consciousness?



Quantum immortality doesn't implies continuous consciousness... it 
just implies that there will always be a next moment. So you can 
passed out but you will eventually wake up.



It is an eternally recurring question/objection to many-worlders. I 
think Quentin is basically right, as far as we agree that QM is 
correct and decoherence does its work. With DM (Digital mechanism, 
actually used by QM) the math is awfully complex. All we can say is 
that the measure one obeys a non boolean sort of quantum logic.
IF DM and/or QM is correct the notion of normality for relatively 
computable histories (the arithmetical world-lines) makes higher your 
survive a cerebral hypoxia in the normal third person sharable common 
reality. For irreversible damages, like with alzheimer, or with death, 
the question of the first person indeterminacy is more complex. By a 
'galois connection', you normally augment the possibilities, but there 
may be jumps, amnesia, and it may depend eventually on what you 
identify yourself with.


But the "jumps" can be arbitrarily long.  So is a jump of 10^10yrs = death?

Brent



Those 'modern theological' questions are awfully difficult, but 
computer science can translate them into questions (or set of 
questions) of arithmetic (in the DM theory, that is assuming we are 
digitalizable machine).


Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ 



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

[Bruno Marchal]

On 20 May 2010, at 16:12, m.a. wrote:

I may have this all wrong, but it seems to me that for there to be  
umpteen trillion copies of a person there had to be umpteen trillion  
(UT) copies of his parents. And only a relatively small sub-group of  
those met and cohabited at the exact moment of his/her conception.  
But the same must have been true for their parents and their  
parents' parents and so forth back to the primoridal slime. And this  
staggering foliation of universes only covers one specific zygote of  
two specific gametes. What of all the other UT^UT combinations  
leading to the creation of other individuals just on this family  
tree? And what of all the other combinations and histories of every  
human, animal, insect and bacterium on this planet? Does it really  
make sense to assume numbers of universes so far beyond our ability  
to conceive of?marty a.



You seem to conceive them very well!  You may look at this in another  
way. We know today how very simple relation (like z := z^2 + c) can  
generate awfully complex infinite (and infinitely complex) object(*).  
Or take the universal dovetailer, which arithmetical form of existence  
is beyond doubt, and does emulate the UT^UT, and UT^UT^UT copies you  
mention above, despite his little definition (code).
So the question is more: how is it that we experience singularity and  
uniqueness. How would a universe be selected in the ocean of  
universes, which admit conceptually simpler theories for their  
justification, or for the justification of their relative appearances.

More is simple. It is the motto of the "everything" idea.
It is said that primitive mind handle only three numbers: 1, 2 and *a  
lot*.  Number like 0 and infinity are eventually simpler to conceive  
than 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...


Also, we do have evidences that QM is correct, and in QM the other  
worlds are not a luxe, they do interfere, and by doing so change the  
probabilities of occurrence of events (in our apparently unique  
universe), and Digital Mechanism predicts more generally statistical  
interference below our substitution levels (that is less well known).


(*) You may take a look at those two (or three videos) for  
illustrating what I mean that z := z^2 + c leads to unimaginably  
"complex"  mathematical realities:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AZYZ-L8m9Q&feature=related   (Julia  
sets)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ma6cV6fw24&feature=related   (the  
Mandelbrot set)


For an introduction to complex numbers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DznD05F1DLI

Bruno







- Original Message -
From: Quentin Anciaux
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

Hi,

2010/5/20 awak 

1. Hello everyone! I'm Alex. I'm a civil engineer with an avid  
passion for
Popular Science books. I'm not a scientist, nor a native English  
speaker, so

please excuse my possible inconsistencies in both Scientific logic or
English grammar. Again, sorry if this question has already been posed.

2. I've just finished reading Russel Standish's "Theory of Nothing"  
so the
following question, concerning Quantum Immortality, has its base in  
the

information found in this book.

3. From what i understand, Functionalism and Computationalism  
implies that
my consciousness will follow all the world-lines where i live at a  
maximum
age - this considering that there might be a limit to "Quantum  
Immortality",
even though this is in contradiction with the definition of this  
concept;
for the purpose my question let's just say there might be some  
worlds where

i live until 200 yrs.

4. From Wikipedia : "Syncope (pronounced /ˈsɪŋkəpi/) is the  
medical term for

fainting, a sudden, usually temporary, loss of consciousness generally
caused by insufficient oxygen in the brain either through cerebral  
hypoxia
or through hypotension, but possibly for other reasons. Typical  
symptoms
progress through dizziness, clamminess of the skin, a dimming of  
vision or
greyout, possibly tinnitus, complete loss of vision, weakness of  
limbs to
physical collapse. These symptoms falling short of complete  
collapse, or a

fall down, may be referred to as a syncoptic episode."

So i take this as evidence that consciousness is not continuous.

5. MY QUESTION: "Why is this possible, for me to pass out, losing my
consciousness because of cerebral hypoxia, hypotension, or because i  
am hit

by someone, considering that Quantum Immortality implies continuous
consciousness"? More to that, shouldn't we find ourselves in worlds  
where we
don't sleep (where we are semi-conscious just like dolphins are  
because they

sleep only with half of their brains) so we don't lose consciousness?


Quantum immortality doesn't implies continuous consciousness... it  
just imp

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Alex, hi Quentin,

On 20 May 2010, at 15:19, Quentin Anciaux wrote:


Hi,

2010/5/20 awak 

1. Hello everyone! I'm Alex. I'm a civil engineer with an avid  
passion for
Popular Science books. I'm not a scientist, nor a native English  
speaker, so

please excuse my possible inconsistencies in both Scientific logic or
English grammar. Again, sorry if this question has already been posed.

2. I've just finished reading Russel Standish's "Theory of Nothing"  
so the
following question, concerning Quantum Immortality, has its base in  
the

information found in this book.

3. From what i understand, Functionalism and Computationalism  
implies that
my consciousness will follow all the world-lines where i live at a  
maximum
age - this considering that there might be a limit to "Quantum  
Immortality",
even though this is in contradiction with the definition of this  
concept;
for the purpose my question let's just say there might be some  
worlds where

i live until 200 yrs.

4. From Wikipedia : "Syncope (pronounced /ˈsɪŋkəpi/) is the  
medical term for

fainting, a sudden, usually temporary, loss of consciousness generally
caused by insufficient oxygen in the brain either through cerebral  
hypoxia
or through hypotension, but possibly for other reasons. Typical  
symptoms
progress through dizziness, clamminess of the skin, a dimming of  
vision or
greyout, possibly tinnitus, complete loss of vision, weakness of  
limbs to
physical collapse. These symptoms falling short of complete  
collapse, or a

fall down, may be referred to as a syncoptic episode."

So i take this as evidence that consciousness is not continuous.

5. MY QUESTION: "Why is this possible, for me to pass out, losing my
consciousness because of cerebral hypoxia, hypotension, or because i  
am hit

by someone, considering that Quantum Immortality implies continuous
consciousness"? More to that, shouldn't we find ourselves in worlds  
where we
don't sleep (where we are semi-conscious just like dolphins are  
because they

sleep only with half of their brains) so we don't lose consciousness?


Quantum immortality doesn't implies continuous consciousness... it  
just implies that there will always be a next moment. So you can  
passed out but you will eventually wake up.



It is an eternally recurring question/objection to many-worlders. I  
think Quentin is basically right, as far as we agree that QM is  
correct and decoherence does its work. With DM (Digital mechanism,  
actually used by QM) the math is awfully complex. All we can say is  
that the measure one obeys a non boolean sort of quantum logic.
IF DM and/or QM is correct the notion of normality for relatively  
computable histories (the arithmetical world-lines) makes higher your  
survive a cerebral hypoxia in the normal third person sharable common  
reality. For irreversible damages, like with alzheimer, or with death,  
the question of the first person indeterminacy is more complex. By a  
'galois connection', you normally augment the possibilities, but there  
may be jumps, amnesia, and it may depend eventually on what you  
identify yourself with.


Those 'modern theological' questions are awfully difficult, but  
computer science can translate them into questions (or set of  
questions) of arithmetic (in the DM theory, that is assuming we are  
digitalizable machine).


Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

[Quentin Anciaux]

2010/5/23 John Mikes 

> Stathis,
> I hate to go into a 'fault-finding' trip, but what gives you the idea that
> "the universe works" in any way WE, stupid consequences THINK OF in any
> fashion?
> The universe (???) or anything we translate into universes in our limited
> minds - MAY work in its own unrestricted ways and we - with our minuscule
> knowledge, even that distorted into our (personally different) minds, -
> imagine that *hypothetical* working into whatever we please.
> Then, pray, why not imagining it in ways we feel comfortable with?
> End of Sunday sermon
>
>
John M
>

You could just have said "The universe/reality cannot be known." End of
story, we can go drink our coffee. It's just seem to me a rather limited
viewpoint.

Quentin



>
>
>
>
> On 5/23/10, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:
>>
>> On 23 May 2010 05:26, John Mikes  wrote:
>> > Stathis:
>> > how about a wording version of your remark:
>> > "you may as well claim that we should not make up an "infinite universe
>> > story" that would boggle the human mind"?
>> > I am not against the 'exist', because any idea does exist (at least in
>> the
>> > mind of the initiator).
>> > John M
>>
>> The mere fact that something is difficult to think about does not mean
>> that that is not how the universe works. Infinite universes are no
>> less mind-boggling than a single infinite universe. For that matter, a
>> finite single universe is also mind-boggling. There just isn't any
>> simple, common sense way to think about the universe or universes.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

[John Mikes]

Stathis,
I hate to go into a 'fault-finding' trip, but what gives you the idea that
"the universe works" in any way WE, stupid consequences THINK OF in any
fashion?
The universe (???) or anything we translate into universes in our limited
minds - MAY work in its own unrestricted ways and we - with our minuscule
knowledge, even that distorted into our (personally different) minds, -
imagine that *hypothetical* working into whatever we please.
Then, pray, why not imagining it in ways we feel comfortable with?
End of Sunday sermon
John M




On 5/23/10, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:
>
> On 23 May 2010 05:26, John Mikes  wrote:
> > Stathis:
> > how about a wording version of your remark:
> > "you may as well claim that we should not make up an "infinite universe
> > story" that would boggle the human mind"?
> > I am not against the 'exist', because any idea does exist (at least in
> the
> > mind of the initiator).
> > John M
>
> The mere fact that something is difficult to think about does not mean
> that that is not how the universe works. Infinite universes are no
> less mind-boggling than a single infinite universe. For that matter, a
> finite single universe is also mind-boggling. There just isn't any
> simple, common sense way to think about the universe or universes.
>
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 23 May 2010 05:26, John Mikes  wrote:
> Stathis:
> how about a wording version of your remark:
> "you may as well claim that we should not make up an "infinite universe
> story" that would boggle the human mind"?
> I am not against the 'exist', because any idea does exist (at least in the
> mind of the initiator).
> John M

The mere fact that something is difficult to think about does not mean
that that is not how the universe works. Infinite universes are no
less mind-boggling than a single infinite universe. For that matter, a
finite single universe is also mind-boggling. There just isn't any
simple, common sense way to think about the universe or universes.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

[John Mikes]

Stathis:
how about a wording version of your remark:
"you may as well claim that we should not make up an "infinite universe
story" that would boggle the human mind"?
I am not against the 'exist', because any idea does exist (at least in the
mind of the initiator).
John M



On 5/20/10, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On 20/05/2010, at 4:12 PM, "m.a."  wrote:
>
>
>
>  I may have this all wrong, but it seems to me that for there to be
> umpteen trillion copies of a person there had to be umpteen trillion (UT)
> copies of his parents. And only a relatively small sub-group of those met
> and cohabited at the exact moment of his/her conception. But the same must
> have been true for their parents and their parents' parents and so forth
> back to the primoridal slime. And this staggering foliation of universes
> only covers one specific zygote of two specific gametes. What of all the
> other UT^UT combinations leading to the creation of other individuals just
> on this family tree? And what of all the other combinations and histories of
> every human, animal, insect and bacterium on this planet? Does it really
> make sense to assume numbers of universes so far beyond our ability to
> conceive of?marty a.
>
>
> You may as well claim that an infinite single universe should not exist
> because it boggles the human mind.
>
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

[Brent Meeker]

On 5/21/2010 5:58 PM, m.a. wrote:


- Original Message -
*From:* Quentin Anciaux <mailto:allco...@gmail.com>
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
*Sent:* Friday, May 21, 2010 9:19 AM
*Subject:* Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"



2010/5/21 m.a. mailto:marty...@bellsouth.net>>

- Original Message -
*From:* Stathis Papaioannou <mailto:stath...@gmail.com>
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
*Sent:* Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:35 PM
    *Subject:* Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"




On 20/05/2010, at 4:12 PM, "m.a." mailto:marty...@bellsouth.net>> wrote:


I may have this all wrong, but it seems to me that for
there to be umpteen trillion copies of a person there had
to be umpteen trillion (UT) copies of his parents. And
only a relatively small sub-group of those met and
cohabited at the exact moment of his/her conception. But
the same must have been true for their parents and their
parents' parents and so forth back to the primoridal
slime. And this staggering foliation of universes only
covers one specific zygote of two specific gametes. What
of all the other UT^UT combinations leading to the
creation of other individuals just on this family tree?
And what of all the other combinations and histories of
every human, animal, insect and bacterium on this planet?
Does it really make sense to assume numbers of universes
so far beyond our ability to conceive of?marty a.


You may as well claim that an infinite single universe
should not exist because it boggles the human mind.

Stathis Papaioannou
I don't know, Stathis. Somehow it seems easier for me to
conceive of ONE infinite universe than to conceive of
umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen trillion
trillion trillion^umpteen...universes. My "mind" is
obviously more limited than yours. m.a.



Just boggling the unmathematical intuition is not a reason to reject 
infinities.  But infinities are acceptable precisely insofar at they do 
not "boggle" the mathematical mind.  If one can say exactly what they 
mean by an infinity, such as the cardinality of the integers, then they 
can be a part of our model of the world.  But if it's just some 
indefinite "infinity" then I think m.a. is right.  Since QM lives in the 
space of square integrable complex functions, it's already a bigger 
infinity than the integers and the reals.  I'm not sure you can define 
Borel sets over elements of this space; and if you can't you've boggled 
the mathematics.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

[m.a.]

  - Original Message - 
  From: Quentin Anciaux 
  To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 9:19 AM
  Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"





  2010/5/21 m.a. 


  - Original Message - 
  From: Stathis Papaioannou 
  To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:35 PM
  Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"






  On 20/05/2010, at 4:12 PM, "m.a."  wrote:


I may have this all wrong, but it seems to me that for there to be 
umpteen trillion copies of a person there had to be umpteen trillion (UT) 
copies of his parents. And only a relatively small sub-group of those met and 
cohabited at the exact moment of his/her conception. But the same must have 
been true for their parents and their parents' parents and so forth back to the 
primoridal slime. And this staggering foliation of universes only covers one 
specific zygote of two specific gametes. What of all the other UT^UT 
combinations leading to the creation of other individuals just on this family 
tree? And what of all the other combinations and histories of every human, 
animal, insect and bacterium on this planet? Does it really make sense to 
assume numbers of universes so far beyond our ability to conceive of?marty 
a.


  You may as well claim that an infinite single universe should not exist 
because it boggles the human mind.


  Stathis Papaioannou

  I don't know, Stathis. Somehow it seems easier for me to conceive of ONE 
infinite universe than to conceive of umpteen trillion trillion 
trillion^umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen...universes. My "mind" is 
obviously more limited than yours. m.a.


  Why in the first case you call it "infinite" and in the other "umpteen 
trillion trillion trillion^umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen".

  Either case, it's infinite so your mind couldn't encompass what it is either 
way... Why choosing "one infinite universe" versus "an infinity of infinite 
universe" ?
  Stathis: This is of course entirely subjective, but I feel some conceptual 
grasp of one infinite universe probably because it's (only) ONE.  I'm 
comfortable with ONE of something. Trying to envision  an infinity of 
infinities seems rather hopeless because I can't even get through the first 
infinity...which leaves me no conceptual tool to deal with the second.  In 
other words, if I try to solve 
  infinity  x  infinity  the first part of the statement is so mysterious 
that I have no idea of how to use it to influence the second part. Hope this 
makes some sense. marty a.


   

  Regards,
  Quentin


  -- 
  All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.


  -- 
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
  To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
  For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

[Nick Prince]

2010/5/21 m.a. 

>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Stathis Papaioannou 
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:35 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"
>
>
>
>

Why in the first case you call it "infinite" and in the other "umpteen
trillion trillion trillion^umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen".

Either case, it's infinite so your mind couldn't encompass what it is either
way... Why choosing "one infinite universe" versus "an infinity of infinite
universe" ?



There is more than one kind of infinity! Aleph0, aleph1 etc.  I don't know
if this is significant here.

Nick Prince


-- 

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Quantum-Immortality-considering-%22Passing-Out%22-tp28620760p28639048.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

[Quentin Anciaux]

2010/5/21 m.a. 

>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Stathis Papaioannou 
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:35 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"
>
>
>
>
> On 20/05/2010, at 4:12 PM, "m.a."  wrote:
>
>   I may have this all wrong, but it seems to me that for there to be
> umpteen trillion copies of a person there had to be umpteen trillion (UT)
> copies of his parents. And only a relatively small sub-group of those met
> and cohabited at the exact moment of his/her conception. But the same must
> have been true for their parents and their parents' parents and so forth
> back to the primoridal slime. And this staggering foliation of universes
> only covers one specific zygote of two specific gametes. What of all the
> other UT^UT combinations leading to the creation of other individuals just
> on this family tree? And what of all the other combinations and histories of
> every human, animal, insect and bacterium on this planet? Does it really
> make sense to assume numbers of universes so far beyond our ability to
> conceive of?marty a.
>
>
> You may as well claim that an infinite single universe should not exist
> because it boggles the human mind.
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> I don't know, Stathis. Somehow it seems easier for me to conceive of ONE
> infinite universe than to conceive of umpteen trillion trillion
> trillion^umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen...universes. My "mind"
> is obviously more limited than yours. m.a.
>
>
>
Why in the first case you call it "infinite" and in the other "umpteen
trillion trillion trillion^umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen".

Either case, it's infinite so your mind couldn't encompass what it is either
way... Why choosing "one infinite universe" versus "an infinity of infinite
universe" ?

Regards,
Quentin

-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

[m.a.]

  - Original Message - 
  From: Stathis Papaioannou 
  To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:35 PM
  Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"






  On 20/05/2010, at 4:12 PM, "m.a."  wrote:


I may have this all wrong, but it seems to me that for there to be umpteen 
trillion copies of a person there had to be umpteen trillion (UT) copies of his 
parents. And only a relatively small sub-group of those met and cohabited at 
the exact moment of his/her conception. But the same must have been true for 
their parents and their parents' parents and so forth back to the primoridal 
slime. And this staggering foliation of universes only covers one specific 
zygote of two specific gametes. What of all the other UT^UT combinations 
leading to the creation of other individuals just on this family tree? And what 
of all the other combinations and histories of every human, animal, insect and 
bacterium on this planet? Does it really make sense to assume numbers of 
universes so far beyond our ability to conceive of?marty a.


  You may as well claim that an infinite single universe should not exist 
because it boggles the human mind.


  Stathis Papaioannou

  I don't know, Stathis. Somehow it seems easier for me to conceive of ONE 
infinite universe than to conceive of umpteen trillion trillion 
trillion^umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen...universes. My "mind" is 
obviously more limited than yours. m.a.





  -- 
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
  To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
  For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 20/05/2010, at 4:12 PM, "m.a."  wrote:

I may have this all wrong, but it seems to me that for there to be  
umpteen trillion copies of a person there had to be umpteen trillion  
(UT) copies of his parents. And only a relatively small sub-group of  
those met and cohabited at the exact moment of his/her conception.  
But the same must have been true for their parents and their  
parents' parents and so forth back to the primoridal slime. And this  
staggering foliation of universes only covers one  specific zygote  
of two specific gametes. What of all the other UT^UT  combinations  
leading to the creation of other individuals just on this family   
tree? And what of all the other combinations and histories of every  
human, animal, insect and bacterium on this planet? Does it really  
make sense to assume numbers of universes so far beyond our ability  
to conceive of?marty a.


You may as well claim that an infinite single universe should not  
exist because it boggles the human mind.


Stathis Papaioannou

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

[m.a.]

I may have this all wrong, but it seems to me that for there to be umpteen 
trillion copies of a person there had to be umpteen trillion (UT) copies of his 
parents. And only a relatively small sub-group of those met and cohabited at 
the exact moment of his/her conception. But the same must have been true for 
their parents and their parents' parents and so forth back to the primoridal 
slime. And this staggering foliation of universes only covers one specific 
zygote of two specific gametes. What of all the other UT^UT combinations 
leading to the creation of other individuals just on this family tree? And what 
of all the other combinations and histories of every human, animal, insect and 
bacterium on this planet? Does it really make sense to assume numbers of 
universes so far beyond our ability to conceive of?marty a.



  - Original Message - 
  From: Quentin Anciaux 
  To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 9:19 AM
  Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"


  Hi,


  2010/5/20 awak 


1. Hello everyone! I'm Alex. I'm a civil engineer with an avid passion for
Popular Science books. I'm not a scientist, nor a native English speaker, so
please excuse my possible inconsistencies in both Scientific logic or
English grammar. Again, sorry if this question has already been posed.

2. I've just finished reading Russel Standish's "Theory of Nothing" so the
following question, concerning Quantum Immortality, has its base in the
information found in this book.

3. From what i understand, Functionalism and Computationalism implies that
my consciousness will follow all the world-lines where i live at a maximum
age - this considering that there might be a limit to "Quantum Immortality",
even though this is in contradiction with the definition of this concept;
for the purpose my question let's just say there might be some worlds where
i live until 200 yrs.

4. From Wikipedia : "Syncope (pronounced /ˈsɪŋkəpi/) is the medical term for
fainting, a sudden, usually temporary, loss of consciousness generally
caused by insufficient oxygen in the brain either through cerebral hypoxia
or through hypotension, but possibly for other reasons. Typical symptoms
progress through dizziness, clamminess of the skin, a dimming of vision or
greyout, possibly tinnitus, complete loss of vision, weakness of limbs to
physical collapse. These symptoms falling short of complete collapse, or a
fall down, may be referred to as a syncoptic episode."

So i take this as evidence that consciousness is not continuous.

5. MY QUESTION: "Why is this possible, for me to pass out, losing my
consciousness because of cerebral hypoxia, hypotension, or because i am hit
by someone, considering that Quantum Immortality implies continuous
consciousness"? More to that, shouldn't we find ourselves in worlds where we
don't sleep (where we are semi-conscious just like dolphins are because they
sleep only with half of their brains) so we don't lose consciousness?



  Quantum immortality doesn't implies continuous consciousness... it just 
implies that there will always be a next moment. So you can passed out but you 
will eventually wake up.

  Regards,
  Quentin
   

With lots of admiration to the Everything List, that had a lot to do with
producing Russel's book, i salute you all!

Alex.
--
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Quantum-Immortality-considering-%22Passing-Out%22-tp28620760p28620760.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.





  -- 
  All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.


  -- 
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
  To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
  For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

[Quentin Anciaux]

Hi,

2010/5/20 awak 

>
> 1. Hello everyone! I'm Alex. I'm a civil engineer with an avid passion for
> Popular Science books. I'm not a scientist, nor a native English speaker,
> so
> please excuse my possible inconsistencies in both Scientific logic or
> English grammar. Again, sorry if this question has already been posed.
>
> 2. I've just finished reading Russel Standish's "Theory of Nothing" so the
> following question, concerning Quantum Immortality, has its base in the
> information found in this book.
>
> 3. From what i understand, Functionalism and Computationalism implies that
> my consciousness will follow all the world-lines where i live at a maximum
> age - this considering that there might be a limit to "Quantum
> Immortality",
> even though this is in contradiction with the definition of this concept;
> for the purpose my question let's just say there might be some worlds where
> i live until 200 yrs.
>
> 4. From Wikipedia : "Syncope (pronounced /ˈsɪŋkəpi/) is the medical term
> for
> fainting, a sudden, usually temporary, loss of consciousness generally
> caused by insufficient oxygen in the brain either through cerebral hypoxia
> or through hypotension, but possibly for other reasons. Typical symptoms
> progress through dizziness, clamminess of the skin, a dimming of vision or
> greyout, possibly tinnitus, complete loss of vision, weakness of limbs to
> physical collapse. These symptoms falling short of complete collapse, or a
> fall down, may be referred to as a syncoptic episode."
>
> So i take this as evidence that consciousness is not continuous.
>
> 5. MY QUESTION: "Why is this possible, for me to pass out, losing my
> consciousness because of cerebral hypoxia, hypotension, or because i am hit
> by someone, considering that Quantum Immortality implies continuous
> consciousness"? More to that, shouldn't we find ourselves in worlds where
> we
> don't sleep (where we are semi-conscious just like dolphins are because
> they
> sleep only with half of their brains) so we don't lose consciousness?
>


Quantum immortality doesn't implies continuous consciousness... it just
implies that there will always be a next moment. So you can passed out but
you will eventually wake up.

Regards,
Quentin


>
> With lots of admiration to the Everything List, that had a lot to do with
> producing Russel's book, i salute you all!
>
> Alex.
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://old.nabble.com/Quantum-Immortality-considering-%22Passing-Out%22-tp28620760p28620760.html
> Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

[awak]

1. Hello everyone! I'm Alex. I'm a civil engineer with an avid passion for
Popular Science books. I'm not a scientist, nor a native English speaker, so
please excuse my possible inconsistencies in both Scientific logic or
English grammar. Again, sorry if this question has already been posed. 

2. I've just finished reading Russel Standish's "Theory of Nothing" so the
following question, concerning Quantum Immortality, has its base in the
information found in this book.

3. From what i understand, Functionalism and Computationalism implies that
my consciousness will follow all the world-lines where i live at a maximum
age - this considering that there might be a limit to "Quantum Immortality",
even though this is in contradiction with the definition of this concept;
for the purpose my question let's just say there might be some worlds where
i live until 200 yrs. 

4. From Wikipedia : "Syncope (pronounced /ˈsɪŋkəpi/) is the medical term for
fainting, a sudden, usually temporary, loss of consciousness generally
caused by insufficient oxygen in the brain either through cerebral hypoxia
or through hypotension, but possibly for other reasons. Typical symptoms
progress through dizziness, clamminess of the skin, a dimming of vision or
greyout, possibly tinnitus, complete loss of vision, weakness of limbs to
physical collapse. These symptoms falling short of complete collapse, or a
fall down, may be referred to as a syncoptic episode."

So i take this as evidence that consciousness is not continuous.

5. MY QUESTION: "Why is this possible, for me to pass out, losing my
consciousness because of cerebral hypoxia, hypotension, or because i am hit
by someone, considering that Quantum Immortality implies continuous
consciousness"? More to that, shouldn't we find ourselves in worlds where we
don't sleep (where we are semi-conscious just like dolphins are because they
sleep only with half of their brains) so we don't lose consciousness?

With lots of admiration to the Everything List, that had a lot to do with
producing Russel's book, i salute you all!

Alex.
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Quantum-Immortality-considering-%22Passing-Out%22-tp28620760p28620760.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.