Re: Have all possible events occurred?
Brent. thanks for reason. How about staarting with that silly word: possible? According to what? Our imagination? Can we devise circumstances beyond our mind? Is it reasonable to judge whether something is possible that is beyond our mental capability? Or informational space? Is the world restricted to our views? (and I mean it broader than just numbers). Best regards John Mikes - Original Message - From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Everything-List everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 5:54 PM Subject: RE: Have all possible events occurred? -Original Message- From: Norman Samish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:33 AM To: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Have all possible events occurred? Norman Samish writes: Stathis, when you say if you believe that everything possible exists are you implying that everything possible need NOT exist (thus refuting Tegmark)? Wouldn't this mean that space-time was not infinite? What hypothesis could explain finite space-time? Brent Meeker writes: Spacetime could be infinite without everything possible existing. It might even depend on how you define possible. Are all real numbers possible? Norman Samish writes: Brent, to me this is cryptic. Can you enlarge on what you mean? Your statement seems to contradict what I've read, more than once; In infinite space and time, anything that can occur must occur, not only once but an infinite number of times. I don't know the author or source, but I've assumed this is a mathematical truism. Am I wrong? It's certainly not a mathematical truism. It might follow from certain conceptions of quantum mechanics; but I haven't seen any explicit derivation of that. There's nothing to prevent the universe from being infinite in both space and time and yet be almost completely empty, or filled with only photons, or repeating periodically, or various other possibilities if you are willing to count as possible different spontaneous symmetry breaking of the fundamental symmetries. As for Are all real numbers 'possible'? According to the definitions I use, the answer, of course, is yes. I obviously do not understand the point you are trying to make. Different sets have different cardinality. The cardinality of real numbers is greater than that of integers. The cardinality of functions over space is greater than the cardinality of points in space. So what's the cardinality of occurences? Brent Meeker -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.5/32 - Release Date: 06/27/05
Re: Have all possible events occurred?
At 10:22 AM 6/26/2005, Norman Samish wrote: Stathis Papaioannou writes: Of course you are right: there is no way to distinguish the original from the copy, given that the copying process works as intended. And if you believe that everything possible exists, then there will always be at least one version of you who will definitely experience whatever outcome you are leaving to chance. Probability is just a first person experience of a universe which is in fact completely deterministic, because we cannot access the parallel worlds where our copies live, and because even if we could, we can only experience being one person at a time. RM Comments: (1) I'll have to disagree with Stathis' (apparent) statement that probability is just a first person experience of a universe. No proper foundation. (2) Additionally, Stathis assumes that we cannot access the parallel worlds where our copies live. Since no one can even define consciousness, or isolate precisely where memory is located (or even what it is), there is no way we can preclude simultaneous experience. The best we can say is, we simply don't know. And, (3), for the same reasons, we cannot say that we experience being one person at a time. There are numerous psychological models---neodissociationism being just one---that posit a personality made up of multiple modules, all interacting (somewhat) under the guidance of an executive, Hilgard's hidden observer. Unless and until we fully understand how consciousness is linked to personality, we probably shouldn't preclude multiple or simultaneous experience.
RE: Have all possible events occurred?
Norman Samish writes: Stathis Papaioannou writes: Of course you are right: there is no way to distinguish the original from the copy, given that the copying process works as intended. And if you believe that everything possible exists, then there will always be at least one version of you who will definitely experience whatever outcome you are leaving to chance. Probability is just a first person experience of a universe which is in fact completely deterministic, because we cannot access the parallel worlds where our copies live, and because even if we could, we can only experience being one person at a time. Stathis, When you say if you believe that everything possible exists are you implying that everything possible need NOT exist (thus refuting Tegmark)? Wouldn't this mean that space-time was not infinite? What hypothesis could explain finite space-time? If you believe that everything possible exists, does this not mean that there exists a universe like ours, only as it will appear 10^100 years in our future? And that there also exists a universe like ours, only as it appeared 10^9 years in the past? And that, in all worlds, all possible events have occurred? Norman, I believe that all possible universes exist, and I agree that this belief entails all the conclusions that you have listed. However, I can't be completely sure about all this. It certainly isn't something considered to be true beyond reasonable doubt amongst physicists, so I don't think we should be too dogmatic about it. --Stathis Papaioannou _ Have fun with your mobile! Ringtones, wallpapers, games and more. http://fun.mobiledownloads.com.au/191191/index.wl
Re: Have all possible events occurred?
R. Miller writes: Stathis Papaioannou writes: Of course you are right: there is no way to distinguish the original from the copy, given that the copying process works as intended. And if you believe that everything possible exists, then there will always be at least one version of you who will definitely experience whatever outcome you are leaving to chance. Probability is just a first person experience of a universe which is in fact completely deterministic, because we cannot access the parallel worlds where our copies live, and because even if we could, we can only experience being one person at a time. RM Comments: (1) I'll have to disagree with Stathis' (apparent) statement that probability is just a first person experience of a universe. No proper foundation. (2) Additionally, Stathis assumes that we cannot access the parallel worlds where our copies live. Since no one can even define consciousness, or isolate precisely where memory is located (or even what it is), there is no way we can preclude simultaneous experience. The best we can say is, we simply don't know. And, (3), for the same reasons, we cannot say that we experience being one person at a time. There are numerous psychological models---neodissociationism being just one---that posit a personality made up of multiple modules, all interacting (somewhat) under the guidance of an executive, Hilgard's hidden observer. Unless and until we fully understand how consciousness is linked to personality, we probably shouldn't preclude multiple or simultaneous experience. 1. I'm not saying that definitely there are all these other universes out there, but if there are, then like the copying experiments, it will seem probabilistic from a first person perspective because you don't know which copy you are going to be. It *does* look probabilistic, doesn't it? When you toss a coin, you only see one result. This could be explained equally well by saying there is only one universe, or multiple universes which do not interact at the level of people and coins. 2. 3. I can only experience being one person at a time. At least, it seems that way: when I toss a coin, I have never observed both heads and tails simultaneously. This tells me there is only one of me, or if there are many versions of me, I can't experience what the other versions are experiencing. Maybe under very unusual circumstances someone can peer into one or more of the parallel universes, but it has never happened to me! --Stathis Papaioannou _ SEEK: Over 80,000 jobs across all industries at Australia's #1 job site. http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail
Re: Have all possible events occurred?
Norman Samish writes: Stathis, when you say if you believe that everything possible exists are you implying that everything possible need NOT exist (thus refuting Tegmark)? Wouldn't this mean that space-time was not infinite? What hypothesis could explain finite space-time? Brent Meeker writes: Spacetime could be infinite without everything possible existing. It might even depend on how you define possible. Are all real numbers possible? Norman Samish writes: Brent, to me this is cryptic. Can you enlarge on what you mean? Your statement seems to contradict what I've read, more than once; In infinite space and time, anything that can occur must occur, not only once but an infinite number of times. I don't know the author or source, but I've assumed this is a mathematical truism. Am I wrong? As for Are all real numbers 'possible'? According to the definitions I use, the answer, of course, is yes. I obviously do not understand the point you are trying to make. Norman
Re: Have all possible events occurred?
At 11:07 PM 6/26/2005, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: R. Miller writes: Stathis Papaioannou writes: Of course you are right: there is no way to distinguish the original from the copy, given that the copying process works as intended. And if you believe that everything possible exists, then there will always be at least one version of you who will definitely experience whatever outcome you are leaving to chance. Probability is just a first person experience of a universe which is in fact completely deterministic, because we cannot access the parallel worlds where our copies live, and because even if we could, we can only experience being one person at a time. RM Comments: (1) I'll have to disagree with Stathis' (apparent) statement that probability is just a first person experience of a universe. No proper foundation. (2) Additionally, Stathis assumes that we cannot access the parallel worlds where our copies live. Since no one can even define consciousness, or isolate precisely where memory is located (or even what it is), there is no way we can preclude simultaneous experience. The best we can say is, we simply don't know. And, (3), for the same reasons, we cannot say that we experience being one person at a time. There are numerous psychological models---neodissociationism being just one---that posit a personality made up of multiple modules, all interacting (somewhat) under the guidance of an executive, Hilgard's hidden observer. Unless and until we fully understand how consciousness is linked to personality, we probably shouldn't preclude multiple or simultaneous experience. 1. I'm not saying that definitely there are all these other universes out there, but if there are, then like the copying experiments, it will seem probabilistic from a first person perspective because you don't know which copy you are going to be. It *does* look probabilistic, doesn't it? When you toss a coin, you only see one result. This could be explained equally well by saying there is only one universe, or multiple universes which do not interact at the level of people and coins. RM: Okay. I see what you mean. Thanks for the clarification. 2. 3. I can only experience being one person at a time. At least, it seems that way: when I toss a coin, I have never observed both heads and tails simultaneously. This tells me there is only one of me, or if there are many versions of me, I can't experience what the other versions are experiencing. Maybe under very unusual circumstances someone can peer into one or more of the parallel universes, but it has never happened to me! Only if you assume personality is defined (remains cohesive?) as a function of the input amplitude---which seems to be a limited definition that doesn't take such things as sensory deprivation (float tanks, ganzfeld stimulation, sleep) into account. Shut down the outside stimulus and we dream, but the personality--or the group of modules that represent the personality cluster--seems to be the same throughout. As for the coin flip---there's no reason to suggest that a single outcome has any impact on our sense of self--it may be that we react simply because a single outcome is considered normal and expected. On a larger scale, we experience events that are often contradictory and we tend to accommodate as well as any video gamer might---with no loss of self. At worse, it comes down to the old joke: Q. Can you make up your mind? A. Well, yes and no. RM
Re: Have all possible events occurred?
Stephen Paul King, Thanks for your kind reply, which I am struggling with. You seem to be saying that something can exist yet not occur. Whether it occurs depends on relations and context. Can you give me supporting information, hopefully intelligible to one who does not have degrees in math, physics or philosophy? Perhaps I can learn something important. This somehow reminds me of Schrödinger's Cat, which I also struggle with. I'm a hard-headed engineer. To me, Schrödinger's Cat must be either alive or dead - I can't believe this both-alive-and-dead-until-observed stuff! There's got to be another answer to the questions that the dual-state cat resolves. Norman - Original Message - From: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 9:06 AM Subject: Re: Have all possible events occurred? Dear Norman, You ask a very important question! As I see it, we need to show that mere *existence* is equivalent to occurance. I would argue that *occurance* is relational and contextual and *existence* is not. Therefor, the mere a priori *existence* of all possible OMs, Copies, Worlds, or whatever, DOES NOT NECESSITATE *Occurance*. It merely allows the *possibility*. Kindest regards, Stephen - Original Message - From: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 11:22 AM Subject: Have all possible events occurred? Stathis Papaioannou writes: Of course you are right: there is no way to distinguish the original from the copy, given that the copying process works as intended. And if you believe that everything possible exists, then there will always be at least one version of you who will definitely experience whatever outcome you are leaving to chance. Probability is just a first person experience of a universe which is in fact completely deterministic, because we cannot access the parallel worlds where our copies live, and because even if we could, we can only experience being one person at a time. Stathis, When you say if you believe that everything possible exists are you implying that everything possible need NOT exist (thus refuting Tegmark)? Wouldn't this mean that space-time was not infinite? What hypothesis could explain finite space-time? If you believe that everything possible exists, does this not mean that there exists a universe like ours, only as it will appear 10^100 years in our future? And that there also exists a universe like ours, only as it appeared 10^9 years in the past? And that, in all worlds, all possible events have occurred? Norman -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.1/28 - Release Date: 6/24/2005
RE: Have all possible events occurred?
-Original Message- From: Norman Samish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:33 AM To: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Have all possible events occurred? Norman Samish writes: Stathis, when you say if you believe that everything possible exists are you implying that everything possible need NOT exist (thus refuting Tegmark)? Wouldn't this mean that space-time was not infinite? What hypothesis could explain finite space-time? Brent Meeker writes: Spacetime could be infinite without everything possible existing. It might even depend on how you define possible. Are all real numbers possible? Norman Samish writes: Brent, to me this is cryptic. Can you enlarge on what you mean? Your statement seems to contradict what I've read, more than once; In infinite space and time, anything that can occur must occur, not only once but an infinite number of times. I don't know the author or source, but I've assumed this is a mathematical truism. Am I wrong? It's certainly not a mathematical truism. It might follow from certain conceptions of quantum mechanics; but I haven't seen any explicit derivation of that. There's nothing to prevent the universe from being infinite in both space and time and yet be almost completely empty, or filled with only photons, or repeating periodically, or various other possibilities if you are willing to count as possible different spontaneous symmetry breaking of the fundamental symmetries. As for Are all real numbers 'possible'? According to the definitions I use, the answer, of course, is yes. I obviously do not understand the point you are trying to make. Different sets have different cardinality. The cardinality of real numbers is greater than that of integers. The cardinality of functions over space is greater than the cardinality of points in space. So what's the cardinality of occurences? Brent Meeker
