Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-15 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Tom Caylor wrote: Hal wrote: I actually think this is a philosphically defensible position. Why should one OM care about another, merely because they happen to be linked by a body? There's no a priori reason why an OM should sacrifice, it doesn't get any benefit by doing so. But I'll tell you

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-15 Thread daddycaylor
Hal wrote: I actually think this is a philosphically defensible position. Why should one OM care about another, merely because they happen to be linked by a body? There's no a priori reason why an OM should sacrifice, it doesn't get any benefit by doing so. But I'll tell you why we don't work

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-15 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Tom Caylor wrote: Stathis wrote: If you wander into the middle of one of our discussions, it might seem that we've all forsaken common sense. As a general rule, bizarre-sounding physical scenarios are proposed as thought experiments, to explain, explore or clarify a theory by applying it to

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-14 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 14-juin-05, à 03:15, Russell Standish a écrit : On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 11:45:52AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: To Russell: I don't understand what you mean by a conscious description. Even the expression conscious machine can be misleading at some point in the reasoning. A

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-14 Thread daddycaylor
Tom wrote: Now if continuousconsciousness is not necessarily required for immortality, then why are you waiting around for copying? Won't cloning come far sooner? What is it about copying that is better than cloning. Stathis wrote: Why do you say that continuous consciousness is not

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-14 Thread daddycaylor
Hal wrote: I actually think this is a philosphically defensible position. Why shouldone OM care about another, merely because they happen to be linked bya body? There's no a priori reason why an OM should sacrifice, it doesn'tget any benefit by doing so. But I'll tell you why we don't work this

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-13 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 12-juin-05, à 06:30, Jesse Mazer a écrit : My speculation is that p(y - x) would depend on a combination of some function that depends only on intrinsic features of the description of x and y--how similar x is to y, basically, the details to be determined by some formal theory of

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-13 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 12-juin-05, à 14:48, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : Bruno Marchal writes: But the basic idea is simple perhaps: Suppose I must choose between a) I am 3-multiplied in ten exemplars. One will get an orange juice and 9 will be tortured. b) I am 3-multiplied in ten exemplars. One will be

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-13 Thread Jesse Mazer
Bruno Marchal: To Jesse: You apparently completely separate the probability of x and x' from the similarity of x and x'. I am not sure that makes sense for me. In particular how could x and x' be similar, if x', but not x, involves a 'white rabbit events'. It's not completely separable,

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-13 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 13-juin-05, à 15:39, Jesse Mazer a écrit : Bruno Marchal: To Jesse: You apparently completely separate the probability of x and x' from the similarity of x and x'. I am not sure that makes sense for me. In particular how could x and x' be similar, if x', but not x, involves a 'white

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-13 Thread Jesse Mazer
Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal: To Jesse: You apparently completely separate the probability of x and x' from the similarity of x and x'. I am not sure that makes sense for me. In particular how could x and x' be similar, if x', but not x, involves a 'white rabbit events'. It's not

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-13 Thread Bruno Marchal
Oops sorry. I did misunderstood you. Thanks for the clarification. I agree with your preceding post to Hal now. Bruno Le 13-juin-05, à 16:23, Jesse Mazer a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal: To Jesse: You apparently completely separate the probability of x and x' from the

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-13 Thread Russell Standish
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 11:45:52AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: To Russell: I don't understand what you mean by a conscious description. Even the expression conscious machine can be misleading at some point in the reasoning. A description could be conscious in the same way that with

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-12 Thread Russell Standish
On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 07:43:30PM -0700, Hal Finney wrote: Jesse Mazer writes: But I explained in my last post how the ASSA could also apply to an arbitrary next observer-moment as opposed to an arbitrary current one--if you impose the condition I mentioned about the relation between

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-12 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Daddycaylor writes: I'm new to this so I haven't read about all your people's different theories. I've read quite a bit on transhumanist stuff, Aubrey DeGrey, Freeman Dyson, ... it seems people are trying anything they can imagine, and expanding into what they can't imagine, to look for

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-12 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Bruno Marchal writes: But the basic idea is simple perhaps: Suppose I must choose between a) I am 3-multiplied in ten exemplars. One will get an orange juice and 9 will be tortured. b) I am 3-multiplied in ten exemplars. One will be tortured, and 9 will get a glass of orange juice

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-12 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
This is *exactly* the way it is! Each moment is ephemeral; once the next moment comes along, the previous one could not be any more thoroughly dead and gone from the universe if it had sat on top of a detonating nuclear bomb. Of course, the difference if you sit on a nuclear bomb is that, QTI

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-11 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Hal Finney writes, in his usual eloquent and enlightening way: I was working on an essay on the nature of thought experiments about copying, but it got bogged down, so I will make this short. I am trying to analyze it based on evolutionary considerations. Copying is much like biological

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-11 Thread Hal Finney
Here's a little tongue-in-cheek rant... From an Unhappy Observer-Moment to its Future Observer-Moments Dear Observer-Moments of my future: Philosophical musing has forced me to reconsider my relationship to you, the observer moments which follow my own in the existence of the observer who ties

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-11 Thread rmiller
At 12:43 PM 6/11/2005, Hal Finney wrote: Here's a little tongue-in-cheek rant... (snip) Yet how many philosophers are willing to seriously consider abandoning this arbitrary conditioning in deciding what is right and wrong? How many of us here are willing to take the logical path to its

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-11 Thread Russell Standish
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 08:15:25AM -0400, Jesse Mazer wrote: OK, is that why you're saying the ASSA and RSSA are incompatible? But my point is that I think this incompatibility is removed if you always take the ASSA as applying to your current observer-moment, and the RSSA as applying to

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-11 Thread Jesse Mazer
Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 08:15:25AM -0400, Jesse Mazer wrote: OK, is that why you're saying the ASSA and RSSA are incompatible? But my point is that I think this incompatibility is removed if you always take the ASSA as applying to your current observer-moment, and

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-11 Thread Hal Finney
Jesse Mazer writes: But I explained in my last post how the ASSA could also apply to an arbitrary next observer-moment as opposed to an arbitrary current one--if you impose the condition I mentioned about the relation between conditional probability and absolute probability, which is

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-11 Thread Jesse Mazer
Hal Finney wrote: Jesse Mazer writes: But I explained in my last post how the ASSA could also apply to an arbitrary next observer-moment as opposed to an arbitrary current one--if you impose the condition I mentioned about the relation between conditional probability and absolute

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-10 Thread Jonathan Colvin
You are offered two choices: (a) A coin will be flipped tomorrow. If the result is heads, you will be tortured; if tails, you will not be tortured. (b) You will be copied 10 times tomorrow. One of the copies will be tortured, and the other 9 will not be

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 10-juin-05, à 06:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : I'm new to this so I haven't read about all your people's different theories.  I've read quite a bit on transhumanist stuff, Aubrey DeGrey, Freeman Dyson, ...  it seems people are trying anything they can imagine, and expanding into what they

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-10 Thread Eugen Leitl
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 02:04:00PM -0700, Hal Finney wrote: I was working on an essay on the nature of thought experiments about copying, but it got bogged down, so I will make this short. I am trying to analyze it based on evolutionary considerations. Copying is much like biological

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-10 Thread Eugen Leitl
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 02:10:51PM -0700, Jonathan Colvin wrote: If I take a loaf of bread, chop it half, put one half in one room and one half in the other, and then ask the question where is the loaf of bread?, we can likely agree that the question is ill-posed. The question what will I

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 09-juin-05, à 23:10, Jonathan Colvin a écrit : Bruno wrote: There's a third possibility, which is that the I pre-split can not be identified with either of the post-split individuals. As per my reponse to Stathis, the question is ill-posed. You can interview the non-tortured

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 09-juin-05, à 23:12, Jonathan Colvin a écrit : With comp, and assuming the copies will never be copied again and are immortal, then b. [the experiment is redescribed below] Ok, but why? Please explain your reasoning. It is not simple to explain, although it is a consequence of the

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-10 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
I attempted something like your water tank model of the multiverse with the game I describe here: http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m6608.html. My conclusion was that the relative measure is important in determining the successor OM (I think this is what you call the RSSA, although I prefer

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 08-juin-05, à 21:54, Jonathan Colvin a écrit : Jonathan Colvin: Beyond the empathetic rationale, I don't see any convincing argument for favoring the copy over a stranger. The copy is not, after all, *me* (although it once was). We ceased being the same person the moment we were

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-09 Thread Jesse Mazer
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Subjectively, there is *always* a one to one correspondence between an earlier and a later version, even though from a third person perspective the relationship may appear to be one to many, many to many, or many to one. This is in part why reasoning as if

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-09 Thread Jonathan Colvin
Stathis wrote: You are offered two choices: (a) A coin will be flipped tomorrow. If the result is heads, you will be tortured; if tails, you will not be tortured. (b) You will be copied 10 times tomorrow. One of the copies will be tortured, and the other 9 will not be

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-09 Thread Jonathan Colvin
Bruno wrote: Jonathan Colvin: Beyond the empathetic rationale, I don't see any convincing argument for favoring the copy over a stranger. The copy is not, after all, *me* (although it once was). We ceased being the same person the moment we were copied and started diverging.

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-09 Thread Hal Finney
I was working on an essay on the nature of thought experiments about copying, but it got bogged down, so I will make this short. I am trying to analyze it based on evolutionary considerations. Copying is much like biological reproduction and we can expect many of the same effects in a society in

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-09 Thread Jonathan Colvin
Bruno wrote: (a) A coin will be flipped tomorrow. If the result is heads, you will be tortured; if tails, you will not be tortured. (b) You will be copied 10 times tomorrow. One of the copies will be tortured, and the other 9 will not be tortured. By your reasoning, there is a

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-09 Thread Hal Finney
Brent Meeker wrote (accidentally offlist): From: Hal Finney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Copying is such a bonus that it swamps consideration of quality of life. In a world where people have adapted to copying, they would work as hard to make a copy as they would in our world to avoid dying (each

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-09 Thread Jesse Mazer
Russell Standish wrote: You are arguing that it is possible to have an absolute measure for each observer moment, as well as a relative measure on the transitions between observer moments. Of course this is correct. However, the ASSA and the RSSA are more than that. The SS stands for self

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-09 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Jonathan Colvin writes: You are offered two choices: (a) A coin will be flipped tomorrow. If the result is heads, you will be tortured; if tails, you will not be tortured. (b) You will be copied 10 times tomorrow. One of the copies will be tortured, and the other 9 will

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-09 Thread Russell Standish
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 07:35:42PM -0400, Jesse Mazer wrote: Russell Standish wrote: You are arguing that it is possible to have an absolute measure for each observer moment, as well as a relative measure on the transitions between observer moments. Of course this is correct. However,

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-09 Thread Jesse Mazer
Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 07:35:42PM -0400, Jesse Mazer wrote: Russell Standish wrote: You are arguing that it is possible to have an absolute measure for each observer moment, as well as a relative measure on the transitions between observer moments. Of course

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-09 Thread Daddycaylor
I'm new to this so I haven't read about all your people's different theories. I've read quite a bit on transhumanist stuff, Aubrey DeGrey, Freeman Dyson, ... it seems people are trying anything they can imagine, and expanding into what they can't imagine, to look for immortality. Now if

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-08 Thread Brent Meeker
-Original Message- From: Jonathan Colvin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 5:20 AM To: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM... ... That raises an interesting question. *Should* we (whether reasoned on an ethical basis or a purely

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-08 Thread Hal Finney
Jonathan Colvin writes: That raises an interesting question. *Should* we (whether reasoned on an ethical basis or a purely selfish one) care more about a copy of ourselves getting hurt than a complete stranger? I have little doubt that I *would* rather a stranger get stuck than my copy, but

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-08 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Jonathan Colvin writes: That raises an interesting question. *Should* we (whether reasoned on an ethical basis or a purely selfish one) care more about a copy of ourselves getting hurt than a complete stranger? I have little doubt that I *would* rather a stranger get stuck than my copy, but

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-08 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 08-juin-05, à 14:18, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : Jonathan Colvin writes: That raises an interesting question. *Should* we (whether reasoned on an ethical basis or a purely selfish one) care more about a copy of ourselves getting hurt than a complete stranger? I have little doubt that

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-08 Thread Jonathan Colvin
Jonathan Colvin: Beyond the empathetic rationale, I don't see any convincing argument for favoring the copy over a stranger. The copy is not, after all, *me* (although it once was). We ceased being the same person the moment we were copied and started diverging. Yes, this is exactly my

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-08 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Jonathan Colvin writes: [quoting Stathis Papaioannou]: The situation is different when I am considering my copies in the future. If I know that tomorrow I will split into two copies, one of whom will be tortured, I am worried, because that means there is 1/2 chance that I will become the

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-07 Thread Lee Corbin
Stathis wrote I got here this way: to be consistent, I must use all my knowledge to arrive at a class of events and processes that I approve of, and classes that I disapprove of. I decided that it was bad for me to suffer. Then since by physics, I seem to be any sufficiently

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-07 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Lee Corbin wrote: [quoting Stathis] I got here this way: to be consistent, I must use all my knowledge to arrive at a class of events and processes that I approve of, and classes that I disapprove of. I decided that it was bad for me to suffer. Then since by physics, I seem to

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-07 Thread Jonathan Colvin
Lee: Not quite! It turns out that everyone who knows them regards identical twins as different persons. And so regards them, I am pretty certain as different people in a way that they were *NOT* so regard you and your duplicate. You and your duplicate---created yesterday, say---would be

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-05 Thread Lee Corbin
Stathis writes I believe that tomorrow I will become one of the people in the multiverse who believe they are me and share my memories. What if you have just taken Midazolam, and so won't remember any of this tomorrow? (I contend that you'll be them anyway.) When I think about this, I

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-05 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Lee Corbin writes (quoting Stathis): I believe that tomorrow I will become one of the people in the multiverse who believe they are me and share my memories. What if you have just taken Midazolam, and so won't remember any of this tomorrow? (I contend that you'll be them anyway.) [Good

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-04 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Lee Corbin writes: Stathis writes ...I think we may basically agree, but there are some differences. If you look at it from a third person perspective, continuity of personal identity over time is not only a delusion but a rather strange and inconsistent delusion. I'm not quite sure I

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-03 Thread Saibal Mitra
- Original Message - From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 05:00 AM Subject: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM... Stephen Paul King writes: I really do not want to be a stick-in-the-mud here, but what do we base

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-03 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Stathis, - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 11:55 PM Subject: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM... snip It is true that nature is quantum mechanical rather than

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-03 Thread Hal Finney
Saibal Mitra writes: This is actualy another argument against QTI. There are only a finite number of different versions of observers. Suppose a 'subjective' time evolution on the set of all possible observers exists that is always well defined. Suppose we start with observer O1, and under time

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-03 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Saibal Mitra writes: Stephen Paul King writes: I really do not want to be a stick-in-the-mud here, but what do we base the idea that copies could exist upon? What if I, or any one else's 1st person aspect, can not be copied? If the operation of copying is impossible, what is the

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-02 Thread Lee Corbin
Stathis writes I understand [Saibal's] point, but I think you are making an invalid assumption about the relationship between a random sampling of all the OM's available to an individual and that individual's experience of living his life. Suppose a trillion trillion copies of my mind

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-02 Thread Lee Corbin
I continue to describe a different way of talking than that used by Stathis, who writes [Saibal writes] The same is true here. It must follow from the laws of physics (which include the effects of simulations) that there are indeed many more copies of you at t2. Yes, we can say that

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-02 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 02-juin-05, à 08:48, Lee Corbin a écrit : What? And I thought that I had understood how the term Observer Moment is used on this list! :-( You are optimist :) According to Nick Bostrom who introduced the term, x-tad-biggerobserver-moments are pieces of subjective time

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-02 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 02-juin-05, à 15:23, Lee Corbin a écrit : Stathis: So if I am told that tomorrow I will be copied ten times and one of these copies will be tortured, I am worried, because that means there is a 1/10 chance I will be tortured. Good example, but I would say that you will be tortured with

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-02 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Lee Corbin writes: Stathis writes I understand [Saibal's] point, but I think you are making an invalid assumption about the relationship between a random sampling of all the OM's available to an individual and that individual's experience of living his life. Suppose a trillion trillion

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-02 Thread Hal Finney
Stathis Papaioannou writes: I don't see how this follows. I can't even imagine what it might mean to get higher benefit from higher measure days. What I assumed Hal meant was that on even days his total measure was higher, so that double the usual number of versions of Hal were generated in

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-02 Thread Quentin Anciaux
Hi Hal, I don't follow you very well, and I tried to ask you two times a question which does not seems to be of interrest to respond (or maybe my english is so bad, that it doesn't mean anything ?). But I'll try once more. What I understand from that is as if you could influence probabilty, as

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-02 Thread Hal Finney
Quentin Anciaux writes: What I understand from that is as if you could influence probabilty, as if knowing something or acting in some way will change your future Hal by having him good moments... But if at every choice, every results exists (whatever the measures of each one).. Some Hal

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-02 Thread Lee Corbin
Bruno writes Le 02-juin-05, à 15:23, Lee Corbin a écrit : [Stathis wrote] So if I am told that tomorrow I will be copied ten times and one of these copies will be tortured, I am worried, because that means there is a 1/10 chance I will be tortured. Good example, but I would say that

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-02 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Lee, Your comments touch on important issues. Having read the article on your web page I think we may basically agree but there are some differences. If you look at it from a third person perspective, continuity of personal identity over time is not only a delusion but a rather strange and

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-02 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Hal Finney writes: Stathis Papaioannou writes: I don't see how this follows. I can't even imagine what it might mean to get higher benefit from higher measure days. What I assumed Hal meant was that on even days his total measure was higher, so that double the usual number of versions of

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-02 Thread Lee Corbin
Stathis writes ...I think we may basically agree, but there are some differences. If you look at it from a third person perspective, continuity of personal identity over time is not only a delusion but a rather strange and inconsistent delusion. I'm not quite sure I understand why you say

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-02 Thread Stephen Paul King
] To: EverythingList everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 10:32 PM Subject: RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM... snip

RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-02 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Lee Corbin writes: The problem is actually one of *anticipation*. As naturally evolved creatures, we are fashioned to anticipate the next moments. I have no time now to get into it, but I don't think that this feeling of anticipation really can be rigorously used; it's (unfortunately) riddled

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-02 Thread Russell Standish
: Thursday, June 02, 2005 10:32 PM Subject: RE: Many Pasts? Not according to QM... snip -- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type application/pgp-signature. Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-02 Thread Hal Finney
Stephen Paul King writes: I really do not want to be a stick-in-the-mud here, but what do we base the idea that copies could exist upon? What if I, or any one else's 1st person aspect, can not be copied? If the operation of copying is impossible, what is the status of all of these

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-02 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Stephen Paul King writes: Dear Lee and Stathis, I really do not want to be a stick-in-the-mud here, but what do we base the idea that copies could exist upon? What if I, or any one else's 1st person aspect, can not be copied? If the operation of copying is impossible, what is the status

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-05-29 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Saibal Mitra wrote: [quoting Stathis] I understand your point, but I think you are making an invalid assumption about the relationship between a random sampling of all the OM's available to an individual and that individual's experience of living his life. Suppose a trillion trillion

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-05-28 Thread Hal Finney
Stathis Papaioannou writes: More generally, if a person has N OM's available to him at time t1 and kN at time t2, does this mean he is k times as likely to find himself experiencing t2 as t1? I suggest that this is not the right way to look at it. A person only experiences one OM at a time,

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-05-28 Thread Quentin Anciaux
Le Samedi 28 Mai 2005 07:21, Hal Finney a écrit : It is the same with all the examples. Causing more experiences of joy is better than causing more experiences of sadness. Even with the one person who lives from day to day, it still applies. He is not subjectively aware of his measure

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-05-28 Thread Saibal Mitra
- Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: everything-list@eskimo.com Verzonden: Saturday, May 28, 2005 07:26 AM Onderwerp: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM... Saibal Mitra wrote: You have to consider the huge number

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-05-28 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Hal Finney writes: Stathis Papaioannou writes: More generally, if a person has N OM's available to him at time t1 and kN at time t2, does this mean he is k times as likely to find himself experiencing t2 as t1? I suggest that this is not the right way to look at it. A person only

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-05-28 Thread Saibal Mitra
Hi Bruno - Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aan: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com Verzonden: Friday, May 27, 2005 04:08 PM Onderwerp: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM... Hi Saibal, Le

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-05-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 28-mai-05, à 14:32, Saibal Mitra a écrit : I'm actually still with the ASSA. I agree that if there is no cul-de-sac, you can always redefine an observer moment by including the information that he has survived a suicide experiment. But I would consider that observer moment to have a

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-05-27 Thread John Collins
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Saibal Mitra wrote: Quoting Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 25th May 2005 Saibal Mitra wrote: One of the arguments in favor of the observer moment picture is that it solves Tegmark's quantum suicide paradox. If you start with a set of all

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-05-27 Thread Saibal Mitra
- Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com Verzonden: Friday, May 27, 2005 01:44 AM Onderwerp: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM... Saibal Mitra wrote: Quoting Stathis Papaioannou

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-05-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Saibal, Le 27-mai-05, à 14:29, Saibal Mitra a écrit : - Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com Verzonden: Friday, May 27, 2005 01:44 AM Onderwerp: Re: Many Pasts? Not according

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-05-27 Thread aet.radal ssg
Excuse me, has anyone seen a ball around here? It's got an infinity symbol on it. Oh, here itis. OK, just playing through...Fore! Original Message - From: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: Many Pasts?

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-05-27 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Saibal Mitra wrote: You have to consider the huge number of alternative states you could be in. 1) Consider an observer moment that has experienced a lot of things. These experiences are encoded by n bits. Suppose that these experiences were more or less random. Then we can conclude that there

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-05-26 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 25th May 2005 Saibal Mitra wrote: One of the arguments in favor of the observer moment picture is that it solves Tegmark's quantum suicide paradox. If you start with a set of all possible observer moments on which a measure is defined (which can be calculated in principle using the laws of

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-05-26 Thread aet.radal ssg
have parallel pasts that begin from the point of decoherence. - Original Message - From: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM... Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 01:24:23 +0200 - Oorspronkelijk bericht

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-05-26 Thread Saibal Mitra
Quoting Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 25th May 2005 Saibal Mitra wrote: One of the arguments in favor of the observer moment picture is that it solves Tegmark's quantum suicide paradox. If you start with a set of all possible observer moments on which a measure is defined (which

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-05-26 Thread Saibal Mitra
that moment and look back - you have parallel pasts that begin from the point of decoherence. - Original Message - From: Saibal Mitra To: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM... Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 01:24:23 +0200

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-05-26 Thread aet.radal ssg
that and the Schroedinger's Cat example.- Original Message - From: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "aet.radal ssg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM... Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 19:02:19 +0200 The original posting about this dates back from the

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-05-26 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Saibal Mitra wrote: Quoting Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 25th May 2005 Saibal Mitra wrote: One of the arguments in favor of the observer moment picture is that it solves Tegmark's quantum suicide paradox. If you start with a set of all possible observer moments on which a

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-05-24 Thread Saibal Mitra
- Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: Patrick Leahy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aan: everything-list@eskimo.com Verzonden: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 05:57 PM Onderwerp: Many Pasts? Not according to QM... Of course, many of you (maybe all) may be defining pasts from an information-theoretic point of

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-05-19 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Patrick Leahy wrote: [quoting Quentin Anciaux, who responded to Patrick's original post] I thought of Observer Moment as containing the observer... What is the meaning of an OM (the same) which spread accross branches ? If you start by the assumption that OM are fundamental, then a branch is an

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-05-18 Thread Quentin Anciaux
Le Mercredi 18 Mai 2005 17:57, Patrick Leahy a écrit : SNIP Of course, many of you (maybe all) may be defining pasts from an information-theoretic point of view, i.e. by identifying all observer-moments in the multiverse which are equivalent as perceived by the observer; in which case the

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-05-18 Thread Patrick Leahy
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le Mercredi 18 Mai 2005 17:57, Patrick Leahy a écrit : SNIP Of course, many of you (maybe all) may be defining pasts from an information-theoretic point of view, i.e. by identifying all observer-moments in the multiverse which are equivalent as perceived

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-05-18 Thread Hal Finney
Patrick Leahy writes: I've recently been reading the archive of this group with great interest and noted a lot of interesting ideas. I'd like to kick off my contribution to the group with a response to a comment made in numerous posts that a single observer-moment can have multiple pasts,

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-05-18 Thread Patrick Leahy
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Hal Finney wrote: Does anybody believe that this is consistent with the many-worlds interpretation of QM? First, welcome to the list. Thanks! SNIP However, particularly as we look to larger ensembles than just the MWI, it becomes attractive to define observers and

  1   2   >