subject:"Re\: Spacetime is \(nonphysical, platonic\) mind"



On 11 Nov 2013, at 20:21, Quentin Anciaux wrote:





2013/11/11 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 11/11/2013 1:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Sure, but if I live infinitely long I will have almost all my  
experiences older than 75.  So when I note that I'm not that old  
and that seems improbable,


The thing is as I said is that you have to be *first* 75 before  
being older... you're talking like every moment of your life was  
chosen randomly... they aren't (at least for me) before today, it  
was yesterday, not a random moment, and tomorrow will be tomorrow  
not a random moment in my life. Using your argument I should never  
have been a child.


No, I'm just saying that sampling your life at random

Your life is not sampled at random, you have to be one year old  
before being 75; before being 1000 before being 10¹⁰.


I'm less likely to find you

You find you every day, according to you, every day should not  
happen, only being  
10 
¹ 
⁰ 
⁰ 
⁰ 
⁰ 
⁰ 
⁰ 
⁰ 
⁰⁰⁰  
is likely, it's just non-sense, your life is not random sampled,  
yesterday happen before today and before tomorrow. That doesn't make  
today less likely than tomorrow.


being less than a year old than being less than a thousand years old.

If my life is infinite, then it seems surprising that I find myself  
less than 75yrs old.


It's not, because it is mandatory that in that long lifespan you  
find yourself 75. You cannot be very old before having been less  
old. Your life is sequential and that sequence cannot be avoided,  
even if you'll live an infinity of time.


I don't think this is a very strong argument, since it would apply  
no matter what age I found myself to be.


Exactly, it's just ASSA is non-sensical.

But it seems curious that I find it to be true of everyone around me  
also.  As though we all started more or less together.  So we  
weren't past eternal either.


I don't see how QI imples past eternality, it's not mandatory that  
infinity goes both way, things can have a start without an end.



I will try to add a subtle point here, in some answer to Brent's  
question.  You are correct here, because immortality and the existence  
of the consistent continuations are relative to your actual state of  
beliefs, and this one can be captured by a finite computational  
state), but the measure on those consistent computational extensions  
is defined by your bodies and evironments, which are defined by the  
set of all computations going through that state, and this implies an  
infinity, including an infinity of pasts (which might due to the  
same, or close, universal machines, recurring in the UD* (or  
arithmetic)(*).

That's why comp immortality implies infinity goes both way.
Put in another way: we have an infinite future above the substitution  
level (comp-immortality)

We have an infinite past below the substitution level.
Here we is somewhat undefined, and this points on the difficulty of  
the question.
I would not like to insist on this too much, as long as much more  
simpler point are not yet well understood.

More on this will appear probably in further comments.

(*) Comp implies that IF the big bang theory is correct (that is the  
big bang is the origin of the physical universe we are observing,  
then, the big bang must have a non observable *physical* origin (like  
the collision of branes in some string theory for example).
In fact it is simple to sum up: comp implies infinities in all  
directions and scales. This is due to the fact that the 1p results  
from the competition between *all* universal (and non universal)  
machines.



Bruno







Quentin


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



--
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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind



On 13 Nov 2013, at 00:33, Quentin Anciaux wrote:





2013/11/12 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
Every one of the perhaps inifinite copies of you will grow old and  
die in less than 150 years.

There is no quantum immortality


Well it's cool asserting things... but you should develop more, all  
I'm saying is that if MWI is true, the argument follows. It's clear  
that if you use other premisses it follows or it doesn't, but  
without knowing more I don't know, but as you seems sure, please  
develop. Plus I'm not arguing that MWI is true (or that QI is true  
for that matter), just following the consequences if MWI is true.



Animals, first persons, observers and philosophers asserts Q.

Scientists, and the wises, asserts P - Q.

Bruno







Quentin


On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux  
allco...@gmail.com wrote:




2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 11/12/2013 1:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 11/12/2013 1:02 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 11/12/2013 12:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute  
probability of being alive, probability is only meaningful  
between two moments...


But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future,

This is ASSA

and that can become arbitrarily small, and in fact it is  
arbitrarily small


If absolute measure makes sense, then your absolute measure is  
always decreasing, still in MWI, as there is always a next moment  
(which will be as *real* as the previous one), I don't see how  
ASSA is relevant for the question.


I guess it depends on how you value future states.  If only those  
you exist in matter then you can ignore the ASSA.  No need for  
life insurance.  No concern about global warming.


That does not follow... RSSA is moment to moment... If you have a  
gun in front of you and you shoot in your head and if MWI is true,  
there will be more branches where you are crippled than where you  
are perfectly safe (and a hell of a lot more where you're dead,  
but *we don't count where you're not*).


But that's part of what bothers me about this idea.  How crippled/ 
brain-damaged can you be and still count as a continuation?  Are  
there degrees of continuation?


As long as you still feel you, that counts.

If so, why can't the degrees asymptote to zero?


It is, reread my previous message, there is a continuum of such  
continuations. The one that don't count are the one where nothing  
is left from you. I would say also, there is a continuum but by  
RSSA, nearest continuation should have higher probability.









- so all rational decisions will be based on assuming it becomes  
zero.  Right?


I don't see how decisions come into play here, rational decisions  
depends on the one taking them... I would rationally choose to  
minimize arm for me (so as not to put my life in jeopardy),  
because if MWI is true *and* with RSSA, me in front on a shotgun,  
will likely result me being crippled while not dead with a hell  
lot more probability than being perfectly safe


But most such events, like being shot with a shotgun, are  
essentially classical which implies that your continuations depend  
on extremely improbable events


Sure, but the point is *ẗhere is a continuation*; that's all what  
is needed for the argument to follow.


There is a continuation seems to slough over what counts as a  
continuation and whether we should care about it.


There is a continuum of continuations, the point is there is, so  
you either argue MWI is false, but your argument is pointeless if  
MWI is true, that's the way it is.


Well I'm certainly not dogmatically assuming MWI.  In fact I'm  
testing whether it leads to absurdities.


Sure, the point is that if MWI is true, the argument follows.





If the only continuations are quite different from what you think  
of as Quentin Anciaux, do they still count?


The only thing that count is 1st POV...


So *you* Quentin Anciaux (incidentally, how do pronounce that?)  
don't necessarily continue.  It is just that there is a continuation  
of 1p POVs.  So we're down to the question of what constitutes a 1p  
POV.


I know what is my own, don't know for you, but I assume you do know  
it for yourself.






And I don't think you can just rely on the continuity of Hilbert  
space evolution because the time scale of that evolution can be  
much faster than the sequences of conscious thought.  So as far QM  
goes you could evolve from Quentin Anciaux to Neo (or to Brent  
Meeker) in a millisecond.





- Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns, e.g. you wake up from having  
dreamed a whole life which led to you being shot, or you discover  
you are just participating in a simulation in which you were shot,  
or you're not really Quentin Anciaux, or...  Did you read

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind



On 12 Nov 2013, at 18:15, meekerdb wrote:


On 11/12/2013 2:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Both with Comp and with Everett-QM we have lost that unique  
theoretical evidence, because our best current explanation (comp,  
or QM) makes that mind-brain identity non sensical.


I don't see anything about QM that makes mind is what a brain does  
non-sensical.


About QM, I don't know.
I reason assuming comp (once and for all, to avoid repetition).
In comp, mind is associated to a relative computation, in the 3p view.  
And my 1p-mind (what counts for immortality question) is associated  
to an infinity computations.




Quantum immortality relies on it: QM implies material objects exist  
as states in Hilbert space which evolve unitarily.  If mind and  
brain are not one-to-one, then your duplication thought experiments  
don't work as arguments.


I don't see this. The argument assumes only that I will survive with P  
= 1 in case my brain is replaced by a digital brain. This does not use  
the one-one identity thesis.


There is a dlight difficulty, which is that at the end of the  
argument, we know that the P(W) = P(M) = 1/2 is false in practice, it  
is only 1/2 minus epsilon, as we learn that perfect annihilation is  
*only* theoretical. In fact


P(W) = P(M) = 1/2 - P(I survive in Helsinki through quantum or comp  
tunneling effect). = 1/2 - P(H)


Now, if you are not reconstituted in W, nor in M, but still  
annihilated in H (Helsinki), then


P(H) = 1 (by comp or quantum tunneling effect), and P(M) = P(W) = 0.

(of course, this is still an approximation, as there is non null  
probability that you will feel in W or M by whatever the UD will make  
you believe this).




Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind



On 12 Nov 2013, at 18:45, meekerdb wrote:


On 11/12/2013 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 12 Nov 2013, at 04:44, meekerdb wrote:


Experience may be like that; everything has 'experience', it's  
just not human experience and when you stop having human  
experience you're dead.




Why? If by dying we remember being something different from human,  
I would still feel like I am surviving. (Amazingly, salvia can lead  
to such an experience/hallucination).


Yes, if you remember.



OK, here we are at a crucial vexing complex point. To address that  
question, we should engage in an type of thought experiment, which I  
have not used in the UDA, although I have use it implicitly at the  
inspiration level for the mathematical AUDA. It is also sleepy in the  
dream argument, or in a comp (re)interpretation of Maury's theory of  
dreams (refuted in his usual interpretation by the experimental  
testing of the REM dream lucidity).


Those different type of thought experiment involve amnesia of some  
kind, and certainly ask for some imagination.

It appears also in Saibal Mitra bactracking.

A recurring thema.

But honestly, without mastering the usual non-amnesic type of  
experience, I am not sure it makes sense to even try those more subtle  
thought experiences. A study of pathological state of consciousness  
can help probably.


It is related with the renormalization, which simple case is got in  
the material (in the Plotinian sense) Bp  Dt.


The idea here is that the realities in which you(the 1-you)  don't  
survive count for nothing in the measure. It is again quasi  
tautological.


The realities where you survive with some amnesia get a role  
proportional to *your* ability to recognize yourself in the other. If  
the usual comp (where you survive integrally with no amnesia, when  
substituted at some level) is assumed, some thought experience can  
hint that we might survive at all level of substitution, in possible  
intermediate non-physical realties (but still arithmetical). The  
probabilities might even depends on our descendants, which might make  
them lower or higher through diverse theo/bio-technologies (which  
might free us from, or freeze us in, the Samsara).





 But I don't remember anything earlier than about age 4 and neither  
do other people I know.  Which then implies that we are not past  
eternal and so it is possible to not be future eternal.


It depends of what you are willing to believe you are, or with what  
you are willing to identify with. There is a part of intrinsic first  
personal *choice* here.










Also, with comp, not everything has experience. Only persons, and  
they need the support of some computational self-reference ability.


And brains provide that support.


Yes.  Locally.
But a brain is itself a persistent relative information pattern  
belonging to infinities of computations. Why it seems linear and  
symmetrical remains to be explained (if that is really the case).


Here , Another Woman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_XHVdz2uRQ
is a Harlequin movie which illustrates  how amnesia can be pleasing/ 
helpful until the memory come back. It is an Harlenquin, so no  
worry: happy ending guarantied :)


Hmm... Identity and amnesia is a frequent theme in the Harlequin  
series, as you can see by typing harlequin romance movies amnesia in  
youtube.



Bruno




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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013-11-13 Thread meekerdb

On 11/13/2013 10:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 12 Nov 2013, at 18:45, meekerdb wrote:

On 11/12/2013 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 12 Nov 2013, at 04:44, meekerdb wrote:

Experience may be like that; everything has 'experience', it's just not human
experience and when you stop having human experience you're dead.

Why? If by dying we remember being something different from human, I would still feel
like I am surviving. (Amazingly, salvia can lead to such an experience/hallucination).

Yes, if you remember.

OK, here we are at a crucial vexing complex point. To address that question, we should
engage in an type of thought experiment, which I have not used in the UDA, although I
have use it implicitly at the inspiration level for the mathematical AUDA. It is also
sleepy in the dream argument, or in a comp (re)interpretation of Maury's theory of
dreams (refuted in his usual interpretation by the experimental testing of the REM dream
lucidity).

Those different type of thought experiment involve amnesia of some kind, and certainly
ask for some imagination.

It appears also in Saibal Mitra bactracking.

A recurring thema.

But honestly, without mastering the usual non-amnesic type of experience, I am not
sure it makes sense to even try those more subtle thought experiences. A study of
pathological state of consciousness can help probably.

It is related with the renormalization, which simple case is got in the material (in
the Plotinian sense) Bp Dt.

The idea here is that the realities in which you(the 1-you) don't survive count for
nothing in the measure. It is again quasi tautological.

The realities where you survive with some amnesia get a role proportional to *your*
ability to recognize yourself in the other. If the usual comp (where you survive
integrally with no amnesia, when substituted at some level) is assumed, some thought
experience can hint that we might survive at all level of substitution, in possible
intermediate non-physical realties (but still arithmetical). The probabilities might
even depends on our descendants, which might make them lower or higher through diverse
theo/bio-technologies (which might free us from, or freeze us in, the Samsara).

But I don't remember anything earlier than about age 4 and neither do other people I
know. Which then implies that we are not past eternal and so it is possible to not be
future eternal.

It depends of what you are willing to believe you are, or with what you are willing to
identify with. There is a part of intrinsic first personal *choice* here.

Of course I'm willing to believe I was a great and famous king in my previous life - but
does that make it so?

Also, with comp, not everything has experience. Only persons, and they need the
support of some computational self-reference ability.

And brains provide that support.

Yes. Locally.
But a brain is itself a persistent relative information pattern belonging to infinities
of computations.

But what do those infinities that provide the underlying physics have to do with conscious
thoughts, which are (at least mostly) strictly classical and finite? Reverting to my
favorite thought experiment, if I build an AI Mars Rover it will presumably be conscious
and have 1p POV. It's AI computations are also supported by an infinity (or very numerous)
processes at a lower level. Does that mean it is immmortal? QTI only applies to it in
the sense that if it is destroyed, or just turned off, then in the vastness of a
multiverse where everything happens there must be similar AI with a similar program that
continues the state of my Mars Rover. This kind of continuation seems to have nothing to
do with consciousness, since you could say the same of any sequence. Saying that it
continues a POV seems like an ad hoc assumption.

Why it seems linear and symmetrical remains to be explained (if that is really
the case).

Here , Another Woman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_XHVdz2uRQ
is a Harlequin movie which illustrates how amnesia can be pleasing/helpful until the
memory come back. It is an Harlenquin, so no worry: happy ending guarantied :)

Hmm... Identity and amnesia is a frequent theme in the Harlequin series, as you can see
by typing harlequin romance movies amnesia in youtube.

Ah, so that's where you do your research. I never would have thought of
looking there. :-)

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013-11-12 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 12 Nov 2013, at 03:38, LizR wrote:


On 12 November 2013 14:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/11/2013 4:29 PM, LizR wrote:

On 12 November 2013 13:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/11/2013 3:39 PM, LizR wrote:

On 12 November 2013 09:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/11/2013 11:21 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
You find you every day, according to you, every day should not  
happen, only being  
10 
¹ 
⁰ 
⁰ 
⁰ 
⁰ 
⁰ 
⁰ 
⁰ 
⁰ 
⁰⁰  
is likely, it's just non-sense, your life is not random sampled,  
yesterday happen before today and before tomorrow. That doesn't  
make today less likely than tomorrow.


Sure, but it makes the interval (0,75) less likely than the  
interval (75, inf).


Unless you're Billy Pilgrim from  Slaughterhouse 5 this argument  
doesn't make sense, beause you are forced to sample your days in  
ascending order.


But what does that have to do with the probabilities?  A sample  
is when I ask myself, how probable is it that my age is what it is  
today.  I don't have to do this everyday.  In fact I'm very  
unlikely to have done it before age 4.  So I don't see why sequence  
is determinative.  ISTM is only implies that tomorrow will be less  
likely than today (since I may not ask tomorrow; possibly because  
I'm dead).


Sequence is determinative because that's how the universe works.  
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace  
from day to day, to the last syllable of recorded time. That's the  
second law doing its thing, and unless you've got very good reason  
to think otherwise, you shouldn't be surprised that it is. All  
we're saying is that you should be unsurprised to find yourself  
living your life in ascending order. You have to pass through your  
current age at some point, unless you die first, and you should  
expect to do so before you reach a greater age. If at your current  
age you ask how probable it is that you are your current age, the  
answer is 1. If you're quantum immortal then you will have the same  
probability every time you ask yourself that question into the  
indefinite future. You are always 100% likely to be your present age!


Suppose you're Benjamin Button.  For him would it be OK to say it's  
surprising I'm only 75?


I don't know anything about Benjamin Button.


Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse.

Oh, right, like the guy in Martin Amis' Time's Arrow (itself a rip  
off from An Age by Brian Aldiss). Presumably according to QTI he's  
at the end of an infinite future lifetime, or whatever? But since  
he's unphysical I guess we can say what we like about him.


So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference  
from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before  
reaching age 150?


My normal inference is that everyone dies. Apparently the QTI throws  
doubt on this by pointing out that we have only sampled an  
infinitesimal proportion of the available branches of the  
multiverse, and that in another infinitesimal portion there might be  
people who live forever (somehow).


We have strong empirical evidences that we die in the third person  
point of view.


We have ONE theoretical evidence that we die in the first person point  
of view, which is the empirical evidence for an identity link between  
mind-state and brain.


Both with Comp and with Everett-QM we have lost that unique  
theoretical evidence, because our best current explanation (comp, or  
QM) makes that mind-brain identity non sensical.


Religion exists because we naturally distinguish the 1p and the 3p,  
which led to the understanding of the difference between the notion of  
soul (mental person) and body (flesh and bones).


Science will completely come back when scientists will take that  
difference into account, and the big steps have been made by Galileo,  
Einstein, Everett and then completed and explained, I think, through  
the correct understanding of comp (intuitive and formal).


For methodological reasons, scientists have put the 1p under the rug  
for a long time, and some have made this into a metaphysics (something  
that even Aristotle has not done, although his emphasis on Nature can  
give that illusion). The 1p comes back under the different art of  
relativizing the observer's position or status.


Bruno






What is your inference from the fact that everywhere you've ever  
travelled has been on or near the surface of a congenial planet  
supplied with air, water and all the necessities of life?



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013-11-12 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 12 Nov 2013, at 04:35, LizR wrote:


On 12 November 2013 16:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/11/2013 6:38 PM, LizR wrote:


Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse.

Oh, right, like the guy in Martin Amis' Time's Arrow (itself a  
rip off from An Age by Brian Aldiss). Presumably according to QTI  
he's at the end of an infinite future lifetime, or whatever? But  
since he's unphysical I guess we can say what we like about him.


The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was by F. Scott Fitzgerald  
(1922).


Oh well, he gets precedence, then. But in any case I don't see any  
particular relevance, probably that's my fault...
So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you  
inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of  
died before reaching age 150?


My normal inference is that everyone dies. Apparently the QTI  
throws doubt on this by pointing out that we have only sampled an  
infinitesimal proportion of the available branches of the  
multiverse, and that in another infinitesimal portion there might  
be people who live forever (somehow).
But doesn't QTI imply that everybody is immortal, as Jason infers.   
Did you read Divided by Inifinity yet?


Yes it does, but only in infinitesimal slivers of the multiverse,  
which is what I was trying to say in my roundabout way.


If you die in the vast majority of the histories, you will still  
survive with a probability one in the 1p-view, even if that happens in  
infinitesimal portion of the computations.  The logic G says that all  
worlds access a cul-de-sac world, but the logic of probability (Bp   
Dt) abstracts from all cul-de-sac world. If you are not reconstituted  
in Moscow, in the WM-duplication,, then P(Washington) = 1.


What the comp-immortality looks like is hard to evaluate, because we  
don't know how to evaluate the probabilities when amnesia, and  
backtracking, are allowed. Comp remains consistent with different  
beliefs on this, and that will lead to quite different comp religions.


Bruno





No I skimmed it, but I hope / think I get the point. Is there  
anything else I should be taking from it apart from this is what  
quantum immortality might look like, assuming a nearby gamma ray  
burst and so on ?
What is your inference from the fact that everywhere you've ever  
travelled has been on or near the surface of a congenial planet  
supplied with air, water and all the necessities of life?

That I'm the product of evolution on this planet.

Right, you're here in an extremely unlikely situation if you take  
random samples from the universe. I was trying to draw a parallel  
here, if I can just remember what it was...




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013-11-12 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 12 Nov 2013, at 04:44, meekerdb wrote:


 Experience may be like that; everything has 'experience', it's just  
not human experience and when you stop having human experience  
you're dead.




Why? If by dying we remember being something different from human, I  
would still feel like I am surviving. (Amazingly, salvia can lead to  
such an experience/hallucination).


Also, with comp, not everything has experience. Only persons, and they  
need the support of some computational self-reference ability.


Bruno



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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:


 Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse.

 So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from
 the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age
 150?


That observation is not relevant the question at hand.  MWI implies
subjective immortality, not immortality of others.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

Also, I found this related thread on QTI, archived by James Higgo, which
took place on this list many years ago:

http://higgo.com/qti/rplaga.htm

Jason


On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:




 On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:


 Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse.

 So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from
 the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age
 150?


 That observation is not relevant the question at hand.  MWI implies
 subjective immortality, not immortality of others.

 Jason



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind


On 11/12/2013 2:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Both with Comp and with Everett-QM we have lost that unique theoretical evidence, 
because our best current explanation (comp, or QM) makes that mind-brain identity non 
sensical.


I don't see anything about QM that makes mind is what a brain does non-sensical. Quantum 
immortality relies on it: QM implies material objects exist as states in Hilbert space 
which evolve unitarily.  If mind and brain are not one-to-one, then your duplication 
thought experiments don't work as arguments.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind


On 11/12/2013 2:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 12 Nov 2013, at 04:35, LizR wrote:

On 12 November 2013 16:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:


On 11/11/2013 6:38 PM, LizR wrote:



Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse.

Oh, right, like the guy in Martin Amis' Time's Arrow (itself a rip off from 
An
Age by Brian Aldiss). Presumably according to QTI he's at the end of an 
infinite
future lifetime, or whatever? But since he's unphysical I guess we can say 
what we
like about him.


The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was by F. Scott Fitzgerald (1922).

Oh well, he gets precedence, then. But in any case I don't see any particular 
relevance, probably that's my fault...



So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference 
from the
fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 
150?


My normal inference is that everyone dies. Apparently the QTI throws doubt 
on this
by pointing out that we have only sampled an infinitesimal proportion of the
available branches of the multiverse, and that in another infinitesimal 
portion
there might be people who live forever (somehow).

But doesn't QTI imply that everybody is immortal, as Jason infers.  Did you 
read
Divided by Inifinity yet?

Yes it does, but only in infinitesimal slivers of the multiverse, which is what I was 
trying to say in my roundabout way.


If you die in the vast majority of the histories, you will still survive with a 
probability one in the 1p-view, even if that happens in infinitesimal portion of the 
computations.


That reads like something John Clark would write: if you see Washington the probability 
you are the guy who sees Washington is 1.  No uncertainty there.  Sounds like a misuse of 
the concept of probability to me.


The logic G says that all worlds access a cul-de-sac world, but the logic of probability 
(Bp  Dt) abstracts from all cul-de-sac world.


What does abstracts from mean?  ignore?  condition on?

Brent


If you are not reconstituted in Moscow, in the WM-duplication,, then 
P(Washington) = 1.

What the comp-immortality looks like is hard to evaluate, because we don't know how to 
evaluate the probabilities when amnesia, and backtracking, are allowed. Comp remains 
consistent with different beliefs on this, and that will lead to quite different comp 
religions.


Bruno





No I skimmed it, but I hope / think I get the point. Is there anything else I should be 
taking from it apart from this is what quantum immortality might look like, assuming a 
nearby gamma ray burst and so on ?



What is your inference from the fact that everywhere you've ever travelled 
has
been on or near the surface of a congenial planet supplied with air, water 
and all
the necessities of life?

That I'm the product of evolution on this planet.


Right, you're here in an extremely unlikely situation if you take random samples from 
the universe. I was trying to draw a parallel here, if I can just remember what it was...




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything 
List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3629/6823 - Release Date: 11/09/13

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything 
List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind


On 11/12/2013 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 12 Nov 2013, at 04:44, meekerdb wrote:


 Experience may be like that; everything has 'experience', it's just not human 
experience and when you stop having human experience you're dead.




Why? If by dying we remember being something different from human, I would still feel 
like I am surviving. (Amazingly, salvia can lead to such an experience/hallucination).


Yes, if you remember.  But I don't remember anything earlier than about age 4 and neither 
do other people I know.  Which then implies that we are not past eternal and so it is 
possible to not be future eternal.




Also, with comp, not everything has experience. Only persons, and they need the support 
of some computational self-reference ability.


And brains provide that support.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind


On 11/12/2013 7:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:



Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse.

So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from 
the fact
you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150?


That observation is not relevant the question at hand.  MWI implies subjective 
immortality, not immortality of others.



I didn't specify a question.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 11/12/2013 10:24 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net

On 11/12/2013 7:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse.

So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference
from the
fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age
150?

That observation is not relevant the question at hand. MWI implies
subjective
immortality, not immortality of others.

I didn't specify a question.

And what is this what's you inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever
heard of died before reaching age 150? ?

Also I don't see the relevance of the fact that we don't have past eternality for that
question ? You don't have to move back to 4 to say we forget things, from day to day
there are a lot of things I forget

Me too, but there are *some things* I remember and even remember remembering. My father
had Alzheimers and he came to a state where he didn't remember anything, even minute to
minute. Was he still the same person? Didn't seem like it to me.

... that doesn't mean I'm dead today, or that those event didn't exists, or that is
necessary they did. QI does not state that we should have an eternal past... only that
our 1 POV will never cease (doesn't say anything about perfect memory recall either).

No, but if we rely on QM to show we have an eternal future, then we have to say why the
time symmetry of QM doesn't imply and eternal past. Of course the obvious answer is in
the past our physical structure (i.e. brain etc) didn't exist. But then that also implies
that we won't exist in the future as our physical structure dissipates.

Brent

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 10:24 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 7:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




 On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:


  Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse.

 So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference
 from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching
 age 150?


  That observation is not relevant the question at hand.  MWI implies
 subjective immortality, not immortality of others.

  I didn't specify a question.

  And what is this what's you inference from the fact you, and every
 body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? ?

  Also I don't see the relevance of the fact that we don't have past
 eternality for that question ? You don't have to move back to 4 to say we
 forget things, from day to day there are a lot of things I forget


 Me too, but there are *some things* I remember and even remember
 remembering.  My father had Alzheimers and he came to a state where he
 didn't remember anything, even minute to minute.  Was he still the same
 person?  Didn't seem like it to me.


   ... that doesn't mean I'm dead today, or that those event didn't
 exists, or that is necessary they did. QI does not state that we should
 have an eternal past... only that our 1 POV will never cease (doesn't say
 anything about perfect memory recall either).


 No, but if we rely on QM to show we have an eternal future, then we have
 to say why the time symmetry of QM doesn't imply and eternal past.  Of
 course the obvious answer is in the past our physical structure (i.e. brain
 etc) didn't exist.  But then that also implies that we won't exist in the
 future as our physical structure dissipates.


Only if MWI is false, QI relies on MWI, with MWI, it is garanteed that some
branches will carry a continuum of you from near perfect continuation to no
continuation (but these are to be ignore, you're just not where you're
not), of course if MWI is false, QI is too.

Quentin



 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 11/12/2013 11:15 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net

On 11/12/2013 10:24 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net

On 11/12/2013 7:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse.

So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you
inference from
the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before
reaching age
150?

That observation is not relevant the question at hand. MWI implies
subjective
immortality, not immortality of others.

I didn't specify a question.

And what is this what's you inference from the fact you, and every body
you've
ever heard of died before reaching age 150? ?

Also I don't see the relevance of the fact that we don't have past
eternality for
that question ? You don't have to move back to 4 to say we forget things,
from day
to day there are a lot of things I forget

Me too, but there are *some things* I remember and even remember
remembering. My
father had Alzheimers and he came to a state where he didn't remember
anything, even
minute to minute. Was he still the same person? Didn't seem like it to me.

... that doesn't mean I'm dead today, or that those event didn't exists, or
that is
necessary they did. QI does not state that we should have an eternal
past... only
that our 1 POV will never cease (doesn't say anything about perfect memory
recall
either).

No, but if we rely on QM to show we have an eternal future, then we have to
say why
the time symmetry of QM doesn't imply and eternal past. Of course the
obvious
answer is in the past our physical structure (i.e. brain etc) didn't exist.
But
then that also implies that we won't exist in the future as our physical
structure
dissipates.

Only if MWI is false, QI relies on MWI, with MWI, it is garanteed that some branches
will carry a continuum of you from near perfect continuation to no continuation (but
these are to be ignore, you're just not where you're not), of course if MWI is false, QI
is too.

But when you look at it that way it's not so dependent on QM as on statistical mechanics.
If your 'measure' in the world (and I'm not sure that's a coherent concept) is continually
decreasing, as the Born weight of dead grows alive falls, then the probability you are
dead approaches 1. Then it becomes vague what you means. Can your next experience be
that being a corpse, a rock, a bit of methane gas? Is there necessarily a Quentin who
remembers being Quentin at all?

Brent

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 11:15 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 10:24 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 7:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




 On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:


  Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse.

 So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference
 from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching
 age 150?


  That observation is not relevant the question at hand.  MWI implies
 subjective immortality, not immortality of others.

  I didn't specify a question.

  And what is this what's you inference from the fact you, and every
 body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? ?

  Also I don't see the relevance of the fact that we don't have past
 eternality for that question ? You don't have to move back to 4 to say we
 forget things, from day to day there are a lot of things I forget


  Me too, but there are *some things* I remember and even remember
 remembering.  My father had Alzheimers and he came to a state where he
 didn't remember anything, even minute to minute.  Was he still the same
 person?  Didn't seem like it to me.


   ... that doesn't mean I'm dead today, or that those event didn't
 exists, or that is necessary they did. QI does not state that we should
 have an eternal past... only that our 1 POV will never cease (doesn't say
 anything about perfect memory recall either).


  No, but if we rely on QM to show we have an eternal future, then we have
 to say why the time symmetry of QM doesn't imply and eternal past.  Of
 course the obvious answer is in the past our physical structure (i.e. brain
 etc) didn't exist.  But then that also implies that we won't exist in the
 future as our physical structure dissipates.


  Only if MWI is false, QI relies on MWI, with MWI, it is garanteed that
 some branches will carry a continuum of you from near perfect continuation
 to no continuation (but these are to be ignore, you're just not where
 you're not), of course if MWI is false, QI is too.


 But when you look at it that way it's not so dependent on QM as on
 statistical mechanics.  If your 'measure' in the world (and I'm not sure
 that's a coherent concept) is continually decreasing, as the Born weight of
 dead grows alive falls, then the probability you are dead approaches 1.


But it will never be 1, so the argument follows. As long as there is at
least one continuation, it is enough, and as MWI garanteed such
continuation, if MWI is true, QI is too.


 Then it becomes vague what you means.


You is your own feeling of being alive Only you know what you is.


  Can your next experience be that being a corpse,


If it's possible to have a 1 POV that feels like 1 POV while being alive,
why not, I don't know, the only thing QI says, is that you will feel a
next moment.


 a rock, a bit of methane gas?  Is there necessarily a Quentin who
 remembers being Quentin at all?


There must be one, but there must be a continuum of Quentin in between...
The only ignored ones are the ones who don't remember having been Quentin.

Quentin



 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 11/12/2013 11:30 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net

On 11/12/2013 11:15 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net

On 11/12/2013 10:24 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net

On 11/12/2013 7:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse.

So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you
inference
from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died
before
reaching age 150?

That observation is not relevant the question at hand. MWI implies
subjective immortality, not immortality of others.

I didn't specify a question.

And what is this what's you inference from the fact you, and every body
you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? ?

Also I don't see the relevance of the fact that we don't have past
eternality
for that question ? You don't have to move back to 4 to say we forget
things,
from day to day there are a lot of things I forget

Me too, but there are *some things* I remember and even remember
remembering.
My father had Alzheimers and he came to a state where he didn't remember
anything, even minute to minute. Was he still the same person? Didn't
seem
like it to me.

... that doesn't mean I'm dead today, or that those event didn't
exists, or
that is necessary they did. QI does not state that we should have an
eternal
past... only that our 1 POV will never cease (doesn't say anything about
perfect memory recall either).

No, but if we rely on QM to show we have an eternal future, then we
have to say
why the time symmetry of QM doesn't imply and eternal past. Of course
the
obvious answer is in the past our physical structure (i.e. brain etc)
didn't
exist. But then that also implies that we won't exist in the future as
our
physical structure dissipates.

Only if MWI is false, QI relies on MWI, with MWI, it is garanteed that some
branches will carry a continuum of you from near perfect continuation to no
continuation (but these are to be ignore, you're just not where you're
not), of
course if MWI is false, QI is too.

But it will never be 1, so the argument follows. As long as there is at least one
continuation, it is enough, and as MWI garanteed such continuation, if MWI is true, QI
is too.

Then it becomes vague what you means.

You is your own feeling of being alive Only you know what you is.

Can your next experience be that being a corpse,

If it's possible to have a 1 POV that feels like 1 POV while being alive, why not, I
don't know, the only thing QI says, is that you will feel a next moment.

a rock, a bit of methane gas? Is there necessarily a Quentin who remembers
being
Quentin at all?

There must be one, but there must be a continuum of Quentin in between... The only
ignored ones are the ones who don't remember having been Quentin.

But that's my point that QI is relying more on statistical mechanics than QM. Essentially
you're saying it's *possible* that there will a experiences of remembering being Quentin
at any given time in the future (something that would have been true in a Newtonian world
view also) and since everything possible happens (another dubious assumption) you are
immortal. But having a vanishing probability of being alive, seems to me the same as
being dead. Of course you can also argue that it is possible, in some world Quentin is
alive, full of memories, has a Nobel prize and is married to Gwenth Paltrow. But isn't
that, alas, a completely different Quentin.

Brent

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 11:30 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 11:15 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 10:24 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 7:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




 On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:


  Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse.

 So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference
 from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before 
 reaching
 age 150?


  That observation is not relevant the question at hand.  MWI implies
 subjective immortality, not immortality of others.

  I didn't specify a question.

  And what is this what's you inference from the fact you, and every
 body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150? ?

  Also I don't see the relevance of the fact that we don't have past
 eternality for that question ? You don't have to move back to 4 to say we
 forget things, from day to day there are a lot of things I forget


  Me too, but there are *some things* I remember and even remember
 remembering.  My father had Alzheimers and he came to a state where he
 didn't remember anything, even minute to minute.  Was he still the same
 person?  Didn't seem like it to me.


   ... that doesn't mean I'm dead today, or that those event didn't
 exists, or that is necessary they did. QI does not state that we should
 have an eternal past... only that our 1 POV will never cease (doesn't say
 anything about perfect memory recall either).


  No, but if we rely on QM to show we have an eternal future, then we
 have to say why the time symmetry of QM doesn't imply and eternal past.  Of
 course the obvious answer is in the past our physical structure (i.e. brain
 etc) didn't exist.  But then that also implies that we won't exist in the
 future as our physical structure dissipates.


  Only if MWI is false, QI relies on MWI, with MWI, it is garanteed that
 some branches will carry a continuum of you from near perfect continuation
 to no continuation (but these are to be ignore, you're just not where
 you're not), of course if MWI is false, QI is too.


  But when you look at it that way it's not so dependent on QM as on
 statistical mechanics.  If your 'measure' in the world (and I'm not sure
 that's a coherent concept) is continually decreasing, as the Born weight of
 dead grows alive falls, then the probability you are dead approaches 1.


  But it will never be 1, so the argument follows. As long as there is at
 least one continuation, it is enough, and as MWI garanteed such
 continuation, if MWI is true, QI is too.


  Then it becomes vague what you means.


  You is your own feeling of being alive Only you know what you
 is.


  Can your next experience be that being a corpse,


  If it's possible to have a 1 POV that feels like 1 POV while being
 alive, why not, I don't know, the only thing QI says, is that you will
 feel a next moment.


 a rock, a bit of methane gas?  Is there necessarily a Quentin who
 remembers being Quentin at all?


  There must be one, but there must be a continuum of Quentin in
 between... The only ignored ones are the ones who don't remember having
 been Quentin.


 But that's my point that QI is relying more on statistical mechanics than
 QM.  Essentially you're saying it's *possible* that there will a
 experiences of remembering being Quentin at any given time in the future


That's not what I'm saying, MWI garantee that there will always be a
continuation at *each and every* moment, there is always a *next moment*.


 (something that would have been true in a Newtonian world view also)


No.


 and since everything possible happens


That's not the point, at each split, there is always a branch containing
a continuation of you.


  (another dubious assumption)


That's not the assumption, the assumption is MWI, at each split there is
a continuum of universe, some containing a continuation of you, some
don't... With QI, you count only the ones containing a continuation of you,
and there is always  1 at each split if MWI is true.


 you are immortal.  But having a vanishing probability of being alive,


This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute probability of
being alive, probability is only meaningful between two moments...


  seems to me the same as being dead.


Being dead is having no next state, as MWI garanteed you'll have (at least
one) next state, you can't be dead.


 Of course you can also argue that it is possible, in some world Quentin is
 alive, full of memories, has a Nobel prize and is married to Gwenth
 Paltrow.  But isn't that, alas, a completely different Quentin.


Well it would no be a direct continuation of me now... QI is moment to
moment, MWI also predict (without QI) that such a Quentin exists in another
branch... but that's not

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind


On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute probability of being alive, 
probability is only meaningful between two moments...


But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future, and that can become 
arbitrarily small, and in fact it is arbitrarily small - so all rational decisions will be 
based on assuming it becomes zero. Right?


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

 This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute probability of
 being alive, probability is only meaningful between two moments...


 But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future,


This is ASSA


 and that can become arbitrarily small, and in fact it is arbitrarily small


If absolute measure makes sense, then your absolute measure is always
decreasing, still in MWI, as there is always a next moment (which will be
as *real* as the previous one), I don't see how ASSA is relevant for the
question.


 - so all rational decisions will be based on assuming it becomes zero.
 Right?


I don't see how decisions come into play here, rational decisions depends
on the one taking them... I would rationally choose to minimize arm for me
(so as not to put my life in jeopardy), because if MWI is true *and* with
RSSA, me in front on a shotgun, will likely result me being crippled while
not dead with a hell lot more probability than being perfectly safe
RSSA is of use, ASSA not much at all.

Quentin



 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

 This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute probability of
 being alive, probability is only meaningful between two moments...


 But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future,


Also if MWI is true, the probability for such is 1...



 and that can become arbitrarily small


Not the probability but the measure. The probability is 1, it is garanteed
that there exists a future continuation of me now. ASSA is only about the
measure, but even if it come vaninshingly small (and I don't think ASSA
makes sense at all), that wouldn't render the one living in a low measure
branch (as seen from ASSA) not real (same thing as seen from RSSA, if MWI
is true, and you're finding yourself in a branch that had only
1/10¹⁰ probability, it will be as real as now), as all the branches
are considered real, measure is not at play here.

Quentin


 , and in fact it is arbitrarily small - so all rational decisions will be
 based on assuming it becomes zero.  Right?

 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 11/12/2013 12:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net

On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute probability of
being
alive, probability is only meaningful between two moments...

But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future,

This is ASSA

and that can become arbitrarily small, and in fact it is arbitrarily small

If absolute measure makes sense, then your absolute measure is always decreasing, still
in MWI, as there is always a next moment (which will be as *real* as the previous one),
I don't see how ASSA is relevant for the question.

I guess it depends on how you value future states. If only those you exist in matter then
you can ignore the ASSA. No need for life insurance. No concern about global warming.

- so all rational decisions will be based on assuming it becomes zero.
Right?

I don't see how decisions come into play here, rational decisions depends on the one
taking them... I would rationally choose to minimize arm for me (so as not to put my
life in jeopardy), because if MWI is true *and* with RSSA, me in front on a shotgun,
will likely result me being crippled while not dead with a hell lot more probability
than being perfectly safe

But most such events, like being shot with a shotgun, are essentially classical which
implies that your continuations depend on extremely improbable events - Rumsfeld's unknown
unknowns, e.g. you wake up from having dreamed a whole life which led to you being shot,
or you discover you are just participating in a simulation in which you were shot, or
you're not really Quentin Anciaux, or... Did you read Divided by Infinity?

RSSA is of use, ASSA not much at all.

So have you bought an annuity for your retirement?

Brent

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 12:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

 This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute probability of
 being alive, probability is only meaningful between two moments...


  But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future,


  This is ASSA


 and that can become arbitrarily small, and in fact it is arbitrarily
 small


  If absolute measure makes sense, then your absolute measure is always
 decreasing, still in MWI, as there is always a next moment (which will be
 as *real* as the previous one), I don't see how ASSA is relevant for the
 question.


 I guess it depends on how you value future states.  If only those you
 exist in matter then you can ignore the ASSA.  No need for life insurance.
 No concern about global warming.


That does not follow... RSSA is moment to moment... If you have a gun in
front of you and you shoot in your head and if MWI is true, there will be
more branches where you are crippled than where you are perfectly safe (and
a hell of a lot more where you're dead, but *we don't count where you're
not*).







 - so all rational decisions will be based on assuming it becomes zero.
 Right?


  I don't see how decisions come into play here, rational decisions
 depends on the one taking them... I would rationally choose to minimize arm
 for me (so as not to put my life in jeopardy), because if MWI is true *and*
 with RSSA, me in front on a shotgun, will likely result me being crippled
 while not dead with a hell lot more probability than being perfectly safe


 But most such events, like being shot with a shotgun, are essentially
 classical which implies that your continuations depend on extremely
 improbable events


Sure, but the point is *ẗhere is a continuation*; that's all what is needed
for the argument to follow.


 - Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns, e.g. you wake up from having dreamed a
 whole life which led to you being shot, or you discover you are just
 participating in a simulation in which you were shot, or you're not really
 Quentin Anciaux, or...  Did you read Divided by Infinity?


    RSSA is of use, ASSA not much at all.


 So have you bought an annuity for your retirement?


You confuse things... RSSA is important, and that's why you buy a life
insurance.

Quentin



 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 11/12/2013 1:02 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net

On 11/12/2013 12:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net

On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute probability
of
being alive, probability is only meaningful between two moments...

But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future,

This is ASSA

and that can become arbitrarily small, and in fact it is arbitrarily
small

If absolute measure makes sense, then your absolute measure is always
decreasing,
still in MWI, as there is always a next moment (which will be as *real* as
the
previous one), I don't see how ASSA is relevant for the question.

I guess it depends on how you value future states. If only those you exist
in
matter then you can ignore the ASSA. No need for life insurance. No
concern about
global warming.

That does not follow... RSSA is moment to moment... If you have a gun in front of you
and you shoot in your head and if MWI is true, there will be more branches where you are
crippled than where you are perfectly safe (and a hell of a lot more where you're dead,
but *we don't count where you're not*).

But that's part of what bothers me about this idea. How crippled/brain-damaged can you be
and still count as a continuation? Are there degrees of continuation? If so, why can't
the degrees asymptote to zero?

- so all rational decisions will be based on assuming it becomes zero.
Right?

I don't see how decisions come into play here, rational decisions depends
on the
one taking them... I would rationally choose to minimize arm for me (so as
not to
put my life in jeopardy), because if MWI is true *and* with RSSA, me in
front on a
shotgun, will likely result me being crippled while not dead with a hell
lot more
probability than being perfectly safe

But most such events, like being shot with a shotgun, are essentially
classical
which implies that your continuations depend on extremely improbable events

Sure, but the point is *ẗhere is a continuation*; that's all what is needed for the
argument to follow.

There is a continuation seems to slough over what counts as a continuation and whether
we should care about it. If the only continuations are quite different from what you
think of as Quentin Anciaux, do they still count? And I don't think you can just rely on
the continuity of Hilbert space evolution because the time scale of that evolution can be
much faster than the sequences of conscious thought. So as far QM goes you could evolve
from Quentin Anciaux to Neo (or to Brent Meeker) in a millisecond.

- Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns, e.g. you wake up from having dreamed a whole
life
which led to you being shot, or you discover you are just participating in a
simulation in which you were shot, or you're not really Quentin Anciaux,
or... Did
you read Divided by Infinity?

RSSA is of use, ASSA not much at all.

So have you bought an annuity for your retirement?

You confuse things... RSSA is important, and that's why you buy a life
insurance.

Life insurance I understand, it is for other people that survive you (in almost all
worlds). But an annuity is for yourself, so that you don't outlive your savings in your
retirement.

Brent

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 1:02 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 12:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

 This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute probability
 of being alive, probability is only meaningful between two moments...


  But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future,


  This is ASSA


 and that can become arbitrarily small, and in fact it is arbitrarily
 small


  If absolute measure makes sense, then your absolute measure is always
 decreasing, still in MWI, as there is always a next moment (which will be
 as *real* as the previous one), I don't see how ASSA is relevant for the
 question.


  I guess it depends on how you value future states.  If only those you
 exist in matter then you can ignore the ASSA.  No need for life insurance.
 No concern about global warming.


  That does not follow... RSSA is moment to moment... If you have a gun in
 front of you and you shoot in your head and if MWI is true, there will be
 more branches where you are crippled than where you are perfectly safe (and
 a hell of a lot more where you're dead, but *we don't count where you're
 not*).


 But that's part of what bothers me about this idea.  How
 crippled/brain-damaged can you be and still count as a continuation?  Are
 there degrees of continuation?


As long as you still feel you, that counts.


 If so, why can't the degrees asymptote to zero?


It is, reread my previous message, there is a continuum of such
continuations. The one that don't count are the one where nothing is left
from you. I would say also, there is a continuum but by RSSA, nearest
continuation should have higher probability.








 - so all rational decisions will be based on assuming it becomes zero.
 Right?


  I don't see how decisions come into play here, rational decisions
 depends on the one taking them... I would rationally choose to minimize arm
 for me (so as not to put my life in jeopardy), because if MWI is true *and*
 with RSSA, me in front on a shotgun, will likely result me being crippled
 while not dead with a hell lot more probability than being perfectly safe


  But most such events, like being shot with a shotgun, are essentially
 classical which implies that your continuations depend on extremely
 improbable events


  Sure, but the point is *ẗhere is a continuation*; that's all what is
 needed for the argument to follow.


 There is a continuation seems to slough over what counts as a
 continuation and whether we should care about it.


There is a continuum of continuations, the point is there is, so you either
argue MWI is false, but your argument is pointeless if MWI is true, that's
the way it is.


 If the only continuations are quite different from what you think of as
 Quentin Anciaux, do they still count?


The only thing that count is 1st POV...


  And I don't think you can just rely on the continuity of Hilbert space
 evolution because the time scale of that evolution can be much faster than
 the sequences of conscious thought.  So as far QM goes you could evolve
 from Quentin Anciaux to Neo (or to Brent Meeker) in a millisecond.




 - Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns, e.g. you wake up from having dreamed a
 whole life which led to you being shot, or you discover you are just
 participating in a simulation in which you were shot, or you're not really
 Quentin Anciaux, or...  Did you read Divided by Infinity?


    RSSA is of use, ASSA not much at all.


  So have you bought an annuity for your retirement?


  You confuse things... RSSA is important, and that's why you buy a life
 insurance.


 Life insurance I understand, it is for other people that survive you (in
 almost all worlds).  But an annuity is for yourself, so that you don't
 outlive your savings in your retirement.


 So what ?

Quentin


 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 11/12/2013 1:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net

On 11/12/2013 1:02 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net

On 11/12/2013 12:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net

On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute
probability of
being alive, probability is only meaningful between two moments...

But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future,

This is ASSA

and that can become arbitrarily small, and in fact it is
arbitrarily small

If absolute measure makes sense, then your absolute measure is always
decreasing, still in MWI, as there is always a next moment (which will
be as
*real* as the previous one), I don't see how ASSA is relevant for the
question.

I guess it depends on how you value future states. If only those you
exist in
matter then you can ignore the ASSA. No need for life insurance. No
concern
about global warming.

That does not follow... RSSA is moment to moment... If you have a gun in
front of
you and you shoot in your head and if MWI is true, there will be more
branches
where you are crippled than where you are perfectly safe (and a hell of a
lot more
where you're dead, but *we don't count where you're not*).

But that's part of what bothers me about this idea. How
crippled/brain-damaged can
you be and still count as a continuation? Are there degrees of
continuation?

As long as you still feel you, that counts.

If so, why can't the degrees asymptote to zero?

It is, reread my previous message, there is a continuum of such continuations. The one
that don't count are the one where nothing is left from you. I would say also, there is
a continuum but by RSSA, nearest continuation should have higher probability.

- so all rational decisions will be based on assuming it becomes
zero. Right?

I don't see how decisions come into play here, rational decisions
depends on
the one taking them... I would rationally choose to minimize arm for me
(so as
not to put my life in jeopardy), because if MWI is true *and* with
RSSA, me in
front on a shotgun, will likely result me being crippled while not dead
with a
hell lot more probability than being perfectly safe

But most such events, like being shot with a shotgun, are essentially
classical
which implies that your continuations depend on extremely improbable
events

Sure, but the point is *ẗhere is a continuation*; that's all what is needed
for the
argument to follow.

There is a continuation seems to slough over what counts as a
continuation and
whether we should care about it.

There is a continuum of continuations, the point is there is, so you either argue MWI is
false, but your argument is pointeless if MWI is true, that's the way it is.

Well I'm certainly not dogmatically assuming MWI. In fact I'm testing whether it leads to
absurdities.

If the only continuations are quite different from what you think of as
Quentin
Anciaux, do they still count?

The only thing that count is 1st POV...

So *you* Quentin Anciaux (incidentally, how do pronounce that?) don't necessarily
continue. It is just that there is a continuation of 1p POVs. So we're down to the
question of what constitutes a 1p POV.

And I don't think you can just rely on the continuity of Hilbert space
evolution
because the time scale of that evolution can be much faster than the
sequences of
conscious thought. So as far QM goes you could evolve from Quentin Anciaux
to Neo
(or to Brent Meeker) in a millisecond.

- Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns, e.g. you wake up from having dreamed a
whole
life which led to you being shot, or you discover you are just
participating in
a simulation in which you were shot, or you're not really Quentin
Anciaux,
or... Did you read Divided by Infinity?

RSSA is of use, ASSA not much at all.

So have you bought an annuity for your retirement?

You confuse things... RSSA is important, and that's why you buy a life
insurance.

Life insurance I understand, it is for other people that survive you (in
almost all
worlds). But an annuity is for yourself, so that you don't outlive your
savings in
your retirement.

So what ?

So if you think you will live much longer than the insurance companies think you will, you
should buy an annuity for your (very) old age.

Brent

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

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 1:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 1:02 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 12:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

 This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute probability
 of being alive, probability is only meaningful between two moments...


  But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future,


  This is ASSA


 and that can become arbitrarily small, and in fact it is arbitrarily
 small


  If absolute measure makes sense, then your absolute measure is always
 decreasing, still in MWI, as there is always a next moment (which will be
 as *real* as the previous one), I don't see how ASSA is relevant for the
 question.


  I guess it depends on how you value future states.  If only those you
 exist in matter then you can ignore the ASSA.  No need for life insurance.
 No concern about global warming.


  That does not follow... RSSA is moment to moment... If you have a gun
 in front of you and you shoot in your head and if MWI is true, there will
 be more branches where you are crippled than where you are perfectly safe
 (and a hell of a lot more where you're dead, but *we don't count where
 you're not*).


  But that's part of what bothers me about this idea.  How
 crippled/brain-damaged can you be and still count as a continuation?  Are
 there degrees of continuation?


  As long as you still feel you, that counts.


 If so, why can't the degrees asymptote to zero?


  It is, reread my previous message, there is a continuum of such
 continuations. The one that don't count are the one where nothing is left
 from you. I would say also, there is a continuum but by RSSA, nearest
 continuation should have higher probability.








 - so all rational decisions will be based on assuming it becomes zero.
 Right?


  I don't see how decisions come into play here, rational decisions
 depends on the one taking them... I would rationally choose to minimize arm
 for me (so as not to put my life in jeopardy), because if MWI is true *and*
 with RSSA, me in front on a shotgun, will likely result me being crippled
 while not dead with a hell lot more probability than being perfectly safe


  But most such events, like being shot with a shotgun, are essentially
 classical which implies that your continuations depend on extremely
 improbable events


  Sure, but the point is *ẗhere is a continuation*; that's all what is
 needed for the argument to follow.


  There is a continuation seems to slough over what counts as a
 continuation and whether we should care about it.


  There is a continuum of continuations, the point is there is, so you
 either argue MWI is false, but your argument is pointeless if MWI is true,
 that's the way it is.


 Well I'm certainly not dogmatically assuming MWI.  In fact I'm testing
 whether it leads to absurdities.


Sure, the point is that if MWI is true, the argument follows.






 If the only continuations are quite different from what you think of as
 Quentin Anciaux, do they still count?


  The only thing that count is 1st POV...


 So *you* Quentin Anciaux (incidentally, how do pronounce that?) don't
 necessarily continue.  It is just that there is a continuation of 1p POVs.
 So we're down to the question of what constitutes a 1p POV.


I know what is my own, don't know for you, but I assume you do know it for
yourself.






  And I don't think you can just rely on the continuity of Hilbert space
 evolution because the time scale of that evolution can be much faster than
 the sequences of conscious thought.  So as far QM goes you could evolve
 from Quentin Anciaux to Neo (or to Brent Meeker) in a millisecond.




 - Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns, e.g. you wake up from having dreamed a
 whole life which led to you being shot, or you discover you are just
 participating in a simulation in which you were shot, or you're not really
 Quentin Anciaux, or...  Did you read Divided by Infinity?


    RSSA is of use, ASSA not much at all.


  So have you bought an annuity for your retirement?


  You confuse things... RSSA is important, and that's why you buy a life
 insurance.


  Life insurance I understand, it is for other people that survive you (in
 almost all worlds).  But an annuity is for yourself, so that you don't
 outlive your savings in your retirement.


   So what ?


 So if you think you will live much longer than the insurance companies
 think you will, you should buy an annuity for your (very) old age.


Maybe we should.



 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group,

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013-11-12 Thread Richard Ruquist

Every one of the perhaps inifinite copies of you will grow old and die in
less than 150 years.
There is no quantum immortality


On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 1:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 1:02 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 12:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

 This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute probability
 of being alive, probability is only meaningful between two moments...


  But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future,


  This is ASSA


 and that can become arbitrarily small, and in fact it is arbitrarily
 small


  If absolute measure makes sense, then your absolute measure is always
 decreasing, still in MWI, as there is always a next moment (which will be
 as *real* as the previous one), I don't see how ASSA is relevant for the
 question.


  I guess it depends on how you value future states.  If only those you
 exist in matter then you can ignore the ASSA.  No need for life insurance.
 No concern about global warming.


  That does not follow... RSSA is moment to moment... If you have a gun
 in front of you and you shoot in your head and if MWI is true, there will
 be more branches where you are crippled than where you are perfectly safe
 (and a hell of a lot more where you're dead, but *we don't count where
 you're not*).


  But that's part of what bothers me about this idea.  How
 crippled/brain-damaged can you be and still count as a continuation?  Are
 there degrees of continuation?


  As long as you still feel you, that counts.


 If so, why can't the degrees asymptote to zero?


  It is, reread my previous message, there is a continuum of such
 continuations. The one that don't count are the one where nothing is left
 from you. I would say also, there is a continuum but by RSSA, nearest
 continuation should have higher probability.








 - so all rational decisions will be based on assuming it becomes
 zero.  Right?


  I don't see how decisions come into play here, rational decisions
 depends on the one taking them... I would rationally choose to minimize arm
 for me (so as not to put my life in jeopardy), because if MWI is true *and*
 with RSSA, me in front on a shotgun, will likely result me being crippled
 while not dead with a hell lot more probability than being perfectly safe


  But most such events, like being shot with a shotgun, are essentially
 classical which implies that your continuations depend on extremely
 improbable events


  Sure, but the point is *ẗhere is a continuation*; that's all what is
 needed for the argument to follow.


  There is a continuation seems to slough over what counts as a
 continuation and whether we should care about it.


  There is a continuum of continuations, the point is there is, so you
 either argue MWI is false, but your argument is pointeless if MWI is true,
 that's the way it is.


 Well I'm certainly not dogmatically assuming MWI.  In fact I'm testing
 whether it leads to absurdities.


 Sure, the point is that if MWI is true, the argument follows.






 If the only continuations are quite different from what you think of as
 Quentin Anciaux, do they still count?


  The only thing that count is 1st POV...


 So *you* Quentin Anciaux (incidentally, how do pronounce that?) don't
 necessarily continue.  It is just that there is a continuation of 1p POVs.
 So we're down to the question of what constitutes a 1p POV.


 I know what is my own, don't know for you, but I assume you do know it for
 yourself.






  And I don't think you can just rely on the continuity of Hilbert space
 evolution because the time scale of that evolution can be much faster than
 the sequences of conscious thought.  So as far QM goes you could evolve
 from Quentin Anciaux to Neo (or to Brent Meeker) in a millisecond.




 - Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns, e.g. you wake up from having dreamed a
 whole life which led to you being shot, or you discover you are just
 participating in a simulation in which you were shot, or you're not really
 Quentin Anciaux, or...  Did you read Divided by Infinity?


    RSSA is of use, ASSA not much at all.


  So have you bought an annuity for your retirement?


  You confuse things... RSSA is important, and that's why you buy a life
 insurance.


  Life insurance I understand, it is for other people that survive you
 (in almost all worlds).  But an annuity is for yourself, so that you don't
 outlive your savings in your retirement.


   So what ?


 So if you think you will live much longer than the insurance companies
 think you will, you should buy an annuity for your (very) old age.


 Maybe we should.



 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013-11-12 Thread John Mikes

Liz wrote: (and I try to interject my remarks in plain lettering)

*Sequence is determinative because that's how the universe works.  *
I would say: how WE explain the workings of the universe (- rather
Multiverse).
* Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day
to day, to the last syllable of recorded time. *
Ditto
*That's the second law doing its thing, and unless you've got very good
reason to think otherwise, you shouldn't be surprised that it is. *
Laws are our deduction of the majority-observed phenomena.They do not
regulate Nature: WE think they are Nature's laws. -  So far...
*All we're saying is that you should be unsurprised to find yourself living
your life in ascending order. *
Order? as we regulate our views (including those 'laws')
*You have to pass through your current age at some point, unless you die
first, and you should expect to do so before you reach a greater age. If at
your current age you ask how probable it is that you are your current age,
the answer is 1. If you're quantum immortal then you will have the same
probability every time you ask yourself that question into the indefinite
future. You are always 100% likely to be your present age...*
Unless you dream... BTW LIKELY is not = Probability 1. The P-word reflects
on our PRESENT (very incomplete) views and does not include a sequence (if
it is not '1').

Just musing

JM




On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 9:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 12 November 2013 14:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/11/2013 4:29 PM, LizR wrote:

 On 12 November 2013 13:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

   On 11/11/2013 3:39 PM, LizR wrote:

 On 12 November 2013 09:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/11/2013 11:21 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

 You find you every day, according to you, every day should not happen,
 only being 10¹⁰⁰ is likely, it's just
 non-sense, your life is not random sampled, yesterday happen before today
 and before tomorrow. That doesn't make today less likely than tomorrow.


  Sure, but it makes the interval (0,75) less likely than the interval
 (75, inf).

  Unless you're Billy Pilgrim from  Slaughterhouse 5 this argument
 doesn't make sense, beause you are forced to sample your days in ascending
 order.


  But what does that have to do with the probabilities?  A sample is
 when I ask myself, how probable is it that my age is what it is today.  I
 don't have to do this everyday.  In fact I'm very unlikely to have done it
 before age 4.  So I don't see why sequence is determinative.  ISTM is only
 implies that tomorrow will be less likely than today (since I may not ask
 tomorrow; possibly because I'm dead).


  Sequence is determinative because that's how the universe works.
 Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to
 day, to the last syllable of recorded time. That's the second law doing its
 thing, and unless you've got very good reason to think otherwise, you
 shouldn't be surprised that it is. All we're saying is that you should be
 unsurprised to find yourself living your life in ascending order. You have
 to pass through your current age at some point, unless you die first, and
 you should expect to do so before you reach a greater age. If at your
 current age you ask how probable it is that you are your current age, the
 answer is 1. If you're quantum immortal then you will have the same
 probability every time you ask yourself that question into the indefinite
 future. You are always 100% likely to be your present age!


 Suppose you're Benjamin Button.  For him would it be OK to say it's
 surprising I'm only 75?


  I don't know anything about Benjamin Button.


 Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse.

 Oh, right, like the guy in Martin Amis' Time's Arrow (itself a rip off
 from An Age by Brian Aldiss). Presumably according to QTI he's at the end
 of an infinite future lifetime, or whatever? But since he's unphysical I
 guess we can say what we like about him.


 So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from
 the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age
 150?


 My normal inference is that everyone dies. Apparently the QTI throws doubt
 on this by pointing out that we have only sampled an infinitesimal
 proportion of the available branches of the multiverse, and that in another
 infinitesimal portion there might be people who live forever (somehow).

 What is your inference from the fact that everywhere you've ever travelled
 has been on or near the surface of a congenial planet supplied with air,
 water and all the necessities of life?

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind


On 11/12/2013 1:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:


So *you* Quentin Anciaux (incidentally, how do pronounce that?) don't 
necessarily
continue.  It is just that there is a continuation of 1p POVs.  So we're 
down to the
question of what constitutes a 1p POV.


I know what is my own, don't know for you, but I assume you do know it for 
yourself.


Yes, but how do I know it?  Is it a matter of perceiving temporal overlap of thoughts - 
no, because then I woudn't be the same person after anesthesia.  Is it a matter of 
memories - that seems plausible; although I don't seem to need very many memories or 
access them often to be me.  Is it a matter, as comp suggests, of realizing the Brent 
input-output function in the brain?


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 1:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

  So *you* Quentin Anciaux (incidentally, how do pronounce that?) don't
 necessarily continue.  It is just that there is a continuation of 1p POVs.
 So we're down to the question of what constitutes a 1p POV.


  I know what is my own, don't know for you, but I assume you do know it
 for yourself.


 Yes, but how do I know it?


I don't know, I just know I'm conscious here and non and I'm me, I can't
explain why, I just know it.

Quentin


 Is it a matter of perceiving temporal overlap of thoughts - no, because
 then I woudn't be the same person after anesthesia.  Is it a matter of
 memories - that seems plausible; although I don't seem to need very many
 memories or access them often to be me.  Is it a matter, as comp
 suggests, of realizing the Brent input-output function in the brain?

 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013/11/13 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 1:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

  So *you* Quentin Anciaux (incidentally, how do pronounce that?) don't
 necessarily continue.  It is just that there is a continuation of 1p POVs.
 So we're down to the question of what constitutes a 1p POV.


  I know what is my own, don't know for you, but I assume you do know it
 for yourself.


 Yes, but how do I know it?


 I don't know, I just know I'm conscious here and non


read now not non


 and I'm me, I can't explain why, I just know it.

 Quentin


 Is it a matter of perceiving temporal overlap of thoughts - no, because
 then I woudn't be the same person after anesthesia.  Is it a matter of
 memories - that seems plausible; although I don't seem to need very many
 memories or access them often to be me.  Is it a matter, as comp
 suggests, of realizing the Brent input-output function in the brain?

 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




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




-- 
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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013/11/12 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com

 Every one of the perhaps inifinite copies of you will grow old and die in
 less than 150 years.
 There is no quantum immortality


Well it's cool asserting things... but you should develop more, all I'm
saying is that if MWI is true, the argument follows. It's clear that if you
use other premisses it follows or it doesn't, but without knowing more I
don't know, but as you seems sure, please develop. Plus I'm not arguing
that MWI is true (or that QI is true for that matter), just following the
consequences if MWI is true.

Quentin



 On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 1:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 1:02 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 12:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

 This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute
 probability of being alive, probability is only meaningful between two
 moments...


  But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future,


  This is ASSA


 and that can become arbitrarily small, and in fact it is arbitrarily
 small


  If absolute measure makes sense, then your absolute measure is
 always decreasing, still in MWI, as there is always a next moment (which
 will be as *real* as the previous one), I don't see how ASSA is relevant
 for the question.


  I guess it depends on how you value future states.  If only those you
 exist in matter then you can ignore the ASSA.  No need for life insurance.
 No concern about global warming.


  That does not follow... RSSA is moment to moment... If you have a gun
 in front of you and you shoot in your head and if MWI is true, there will
 be more branches where you are crippled than where you are perfectly safe
 (and a hell of a lot more where you're dead, but *we don't count where
 you're not*).


  But that's part of what bothers me about this idea.  How
 crippled/brain-damaged can you be and still count as a continuation?  Are
 there degrees of continuation?


  As long as you still feel you, that counts.


 If so, why can't the degrees asymptote to zero?


  It is, reread my previous message, there is a continuum of such
 continuations. The one that don't count are the one where nothing is left
 from you. I would say also, there is a continuum but by RSSA, nearest
 continuation should have higher probability.








 - so all rational decisions will be based on assuming it becomes
 zero.  Right?


  I don't see how decisions come into play here, rational decisions
 depends on the one taking them... I would rationally choose to minimize 
 arm
 for me (so as not to put my life in jeopardy), because if MWI is true 
 *and*
 with RSSA, me in front on a shotgun, will likely result me being crippled
 while not dead with a hell lot more probability than being perfectly safe


  But most such events, like being shot with a shotgun, are essentially
 classical which implies that your continuations depend on extremely
 improbable events


  Sure, but the point is *ẗhere is a continuation*; that's all what is
 needed for the argument to follow.


  There is a continuation seems to slough over what counts as a
 continuation and whether we should care about it.


  There is a continuum of continuations, the point is there is, so you
 either argue MWI is false, but your argument is pointeless if MWI is true,
 that's the way it is.


 Well I'm certainly not dogmatically assuming MWI.  In fact I'm testing
 whether it leads to absurdities.


 Sure, the point is that if MWI is true, the argument follows.






 If the only continuations are quite different from what you think of as
 Quentin Anciaux, do they still count?


  The only thing that count is 1st POV...


 So *you* Quentin Anciaux (incidentally, how do pronounce that?) don't
 necessarily continue.  It is just that there is a continuation of 1p POVs.
 So we're down to the question of what constitutes a 1p POV.


 I know what is my own, don't know for you, but I assume you do know it
 for yourself.






  And I don't think you can just rely on the continuity of Hilbert space
 evolution because the time scale of that evolution can be much faster than
 the sequences of conscious thought.  So as far QM goes you could evolve
 from Quentin Anciaux to Neo (or to Brent Meeker) in a millisecond.




 - Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns, e.g. you wake up from having dreamed a
 whole life which led to you being shot, or you discover you are just
 participating in a simulation in which you were shot, or you're not really
 Quentin Anciaux, or...  Did you read Divided by Infinity?


    RSSA is of use, ASSA not much at all.


  So have you bought an annuity for your retirement?


  You confuse things... RSSA is important, and

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 13 November 2013 10:30, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  But that's part of what bothers me about this idea.  How
 crippled/brain-damaged can you be and still count as a continuation?  Are
 there degrees of continuation?  If so, why can't the degrees asymptote to
 zero?


That bothers me too. It hinges on the critical question of whether you can
have degrees of consciousness (rather than of awareness). If consciousness
is a binary thing then thee are no degrees and you remain conscious in all
branches that count as continuations (though horribly wounded in some -
which is also a bother).

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 13 November 2013 11:12, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 Every one of the perhaps inifinite copies of you will grow old and die in
 less than 150 years.
 There is no quantum immortality


A pretty bold statement. I don't see that the laws of physics require this
- there must be a small chance of living to be 200, e.g. if a load of
cosmic rays miss your DNA by some miracle? Or something similar. Of course
you end up rather frail in 99.% of the branches, so QTI seems
to suggest an eternity of being not quite dead. Not a great prospect...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

Le 12 nov. 2013 22:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net a écrit :

 On 11/12/2013 1:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

 On 11/12/2013 1:02 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

 On 11/12/2013 12:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

 On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

 This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute
probability of being alive, probability is only meaningful between two
moments...


 But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future,


 This is ASSA


 and that can become arbitrarily small, and in fact it is
arbitrarily small


 If absolute measure makes sense, then your absolute measure is
always decreasing, still in MWI, as there is always a next moment (which
will be as *real* as the previous one), I don't see how ASSA is relevant
for the question.


 I guess it depends on how you value future states.  If only those you
exist in matter then you can ignore the ASSA.  No need for life insurance.
No concern about global warming.


 That does not follow... RSSA is moment to moment... If you have a gun
in front of you and you shoot in your head and if MWI is true, there will
be more branches where you are crippled than where you are perfectly safe
(and a hell of a lot more where you're dead, but *we don't count where
you're not*).


 But that's part of what bothers me about this idea.  How
crippled/brain-damaged can you be and still count as a continuation?  Are
there degrees of continuation?


 As long as you still feel you, that counts.


 If so, why can't the degrees asymptote to zero?


 It is, reread my previous message, there is a continuum of such
continuations. The one that don't count are the one where nothing is left
from you. I would say also, there is a continuum but by RSSA, nearest
continuation should have higher probability.








 - so all rational decisions will be based on assuming it becomes
zero.  Right?


 I don't see how decisions come into play here, rational decisions
depends on the one taking them... I would rationally choose to minimize arm
for me (so as not to put my life in jeopardy), because if MWI is true *and*
with RSSA, me in front on a shotgun, will likely result me being crippled
while not dead with a hell lot more probability than being perfectly safe


 But most such events, like being shot with a shotgun, are essentially
classical which implies that your continuations depend on extremely
improbable events


 Sure, but the point is *ẗhere is a continuation*; that's all what is
needed for the argument to follow.


 There is a continuation seems to slough over what counts as a
continuation and whether we should care about it.


 There is a continuum of continuations, the point is there is, so you
either argue MWI is false, but your argument is pointeless if MWI is true,
that's the way it is.


 Well I'm certainly not dogmatically assuming MWI.  In fact I'm testing
whether it leads to absurdities.




 If the only continuations are quite different from what you think of as
Quentin Anciaux, do they still count?


 The only thing that count is 1st POV...


 So *you* Quentin Anciaux (incidentally, how do pronounce that?)

It is pronounced like this :

An like in the end  of restaurant.
Ci like sea.
Aux like oh.

Quentin

don't necessarily continue.  It is just that there is a continuation of 1p
POVs.  So we're down to the question of what constitutes a 1p POV.




 And I don't think you can just rely on the continuity of Hilbert space
evolution because the time scale of that evolution can be much faster than
the sequences of conscious thought.  So as far QM goes you could evolve
from Quentin Anciaux to Neo (or to Brent Meeker) in a millisecond.




 - Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns, e.g. you wake up from having dreamed a
whole life which led to you being shot, or you discover you are just
participating in a simulation in which you were shot, or you're not really
Quentin Anciaux, or...  Did you read Divided by Infinity?


  RSSA is of use, ASSA not much at all.


 So have you bought an annuity for your retirement?


 You confuse things... RSSA is important, and that's why you buy a life
insurance.


 Life insurance I understand, it is for other people that survive you
(in almost all worlds).  But an annuity is for yourself, so that you don't
outlive your savings in your retirement.


  So what ?


 So if you think you will live much longer than the insurance companies
think you will, you should buy an annuity for your (very) old age.

 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 13 November 2013 11:16, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:

 Liz wrote: (and I try to interject my remarks in plain lettering)

 *Sequence is determinative because that's how the universe works.  *
 I would say: how WE explain the workings of the universe (- rather
 Multiverse).

 Yes of course but so far the second law of thermodynamics has held up
pretty well.

 * Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day
 to day, to the last syllable of recorded time. *
 Ditto
 *That's the second law doing its thing, and unless you've got very good
 reason to think otherwise, you shouldn't be surprised that it is. *
 Laws are our deduction of the majority-observed phenomena.They do not
 regulate Nature: WE think they are Nature's laws. -  So far...

 Yes of course. But we have to agree to some things in order to have a
meaningful discussion. Saying we may be wrong about the laws of physics is
not a good enough answer to my objections to Brent's use of Bayesian
arguments concerning his chance of finding himself at a particular age.
Could you address the point at issue rather than using the mystical
gambit ?

 *All we're saying is that you should be unsurprised to find yourself
 living your life in ascending order. *
 Order? as we regulate our views (including those 'laws')

 What?

 *You have to pass through your current age at some point, unless you die
 first, and you should expect to do so before you reach a greater age. If at
 your current age you ask how probable it is that you are your current age,
 the answer is 1. If you're quantum immortal then you will have the same
 probability every time you ask yourself that question into the indefinite
 future. You are always 100% likely to be your present age...*
 Unless you dream... BTW LIKELY is not = Probability 1. The P-word
 reflects on our PRESENT (very incomplete) views and does not include a
 sequence (if it is not '1').

 What??

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 13 November 2013 11:22, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/12/2013 1:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

  So *you* Quentin Anciaux (incidentally, how do pronounce that?) don't
 necessarily continue.  It is just that there is a continuation of 1p POVs.
 So we're down to the question of what constitutes a 1p POV.


  I know what is my own, don't know for you, but I assume you do know it
 for yourself.

 Yes, but how do I know it?  Is it a matter of perceiving temporal
 overlap of thoughts - no, because then I woudn't be the same person after
 anesthesia.  Is it a matter of memories - that seems plausible; although
 I don't seem to need very many memories or access them often to be me.
 Is it a matter, as comp suggests, of realizing the Brent input-output
 function in the brain?

 You don't know if your memories are accurate or that you are the same
person as you were a second before, or anything else to do with the
*contents* of your consciousness. What you do know is that you're having
your present experiences and thinking your present thoughts.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:15 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/12/2013 2:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 Both with Comp and with Everett-QM we have lost that unique theoretical
 evidence, because our best current explanation (comp, or QM) makes that
 mind-brain identity non sensical.


 I don't see anything about QM that makes mind is what a brain does
 non-sensical.  Quantum immortality relies on it: QM implies material
 objects exist as states in Hilbert space which evolve unitarily.  If mind
 and brain are not one-to-one, then your duplication thought experiments
 don't work as arguments.



I think Bruno may be criticizing the mind-brain identity (a.k.a
type-physicalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_physicalism ) which
holds there is a one-to-one mapping, where the more modern theories of mind
(functionalism, computationalism, etc.) subscribe to multiple
realizeability, which implies it is not a one-to-one identity, but rather a
a many-to-one (many_physical_states-to-one_mind_state) theory (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_physicalism#Criticism_and_replies ).

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:45 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 On 11/12/2013 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 12 Nov 2013, at 04:44, meekerdb wrote:


   Experience may be like that; everything has 'experience', it's just not
 human experience and when you stop having human experience you're dead.


 Why? If by dying we remember being something different from human, I
 would still feel like I am surviving. (Amazingly, salvia can lead to such
 an experience/hallucination).


 Yes, if you remember.  But I don't remember anything earlier than about
 age 4 and neither do other people I know.  Which then implies that we are
 not past eternal and so it is possible to not be future eternal.


You may be jumping to conclusions.  All that implies is that you don't
currently have access to infinite memories.  Having infinite memories, and
having access to infinite memories, are quite different from having an
eternal past.

Jason





 Also, with comp, not everything has experience. Only persons, and they
 need the support of some computational self-reference ability.


 And brains provide that support.

 Brent


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 Every one of the perhaps inifinite copies of you will grow old and die in
 less than 150 years.
 There is no quantum immortality


I guess that settles it.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 11/12/2013 4:13 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 November 2013 11:22, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:

On 11/12/2013 1:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

So *you* Quentin Anciaux (incidentally, how do pronounce that?) don't
necessarily continue. It is just that there is a continuation of 1p
POVs. So
we're down to the question of what constitutes a 1p POV.

I know what is my own, don't know for you, but I assume you do know it for
yourself.

Yes, but how do I know it? Is it a matter of perceiving temporal overlap
of
thoughts - no, because then I woudn't be the same person after anesthesia.
Is it a
matter of memories - that seems plausible; although I don't seem to need
very many
memories or access them often to be me. Is it a matter, as comp
suggests, of
realizing the Brent input-output function in the brain?

You don't know if your memories are accurate or that you are the same person as you were
a second before, or anything else to do with the /contents/ of your consciousness. What
you do know is that you're having your present experiences and thinking your present
thoughts.

But I think that fuzzes up the idea of continuation. If consciousness is a set of
disconnected observer moments then continuation can only refer to some inherent
similarities that suffices to order these moments. I don't think conscious thoughts,
which last maybe 100msec, have sufficient content to do this. On the other hand, because
of their duration, I think they overlap preceding and succeeding thoughts. The brain, as a
neural net, can have thoughts in various stages of becoming conscious or producing
actions. But that model implies that the continuity is due to physical processes which are
not conscious (or in Bruno's model they are at the much lower level). But that implies
not all brain processes entail some consciousness. MWI implies continuity at the physics
level, but not at the consciousness level.

Brent

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:57 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 13 November 2013 11:12, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 Every one of the perhaps inifinite copies of you will grow old and die in
 less than 150 years.
 There is no quantum immortality


 A pretty bold statement. I don't see that the laws of physics require this
 - there must be a small chance of living to be 200, e.g. if a load of
 cosmic rays miss your DNA by some miracle? Or something similar. Of course
 you end up rather frail in 99.% of the branches, so QTI seems
 to suggest an eternity of being not quite dead. Not a great prospect...



Eventually the probability of the simulation hypothesis (
http://www.simulation-argument.com/faq.html ) takes over.  The simulation
hypothesis (that you exist in a simulation) essentially is already 100% if
you believe in MWI.  The question is what proportion of your explanations
are simulations.  Say it is 1%.  Then when the probability of your organic
survival drops ever lower in the many worlds, then your survival through
the simulation hypothesis becomes increasingly likely.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind


On 11/12/2013 4:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:45 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:


On 11/12/2013 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 12 Nov 2013, at 04:44, meekerdb wrote:


 Experience may be like that; everything has 'experience', it's 
just not
human experience and when you stop having human experience you're 
dead.


Why? If by dying we remember being something different from human, I 
would still
feel like I am surviving. (Amazingly, salvia can lead to such an
experience/hallucination).


Yes, if you remember.  But I don't remember anything earlier than about age 
4 and
neither do other people I know.  Which then implies that we are not past 
eternal and
so it is possible to not be future eternal.


You may be jumping to conclusions.  All that implies is that you don't currently have 
access to infinite memories.  Having infinite memories, and having access to infinite 
memories, are quite different from having an eternal past.




Of course I don't even have access to memories of last Nov 12. It's not the absence of 
memories of 1000yrs ago, it's absence of *all* memory before 1944.


Is it your theory that there is a first Brent experience, which was not the continuation 
of any prior experience, an experiencless predecessor.  I could buy that, since I've been 
unconscious a few times.  But then that seems to allow there are experiences with no 
continuation in the sense of continuity.  They are just connected by memories or other 
similarities.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind


On 11/12/2013 5:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:57 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

On 13 November 2013 11:12, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote:

Every one of the perhaps inifinite copies of you will grow old and die 
in less
than 150 years.
There is no quantum immortality


A pretty bold statement. I don't see that the laws of physics require this 
- there
must be a small chance of living to be 200, e.g. if a load of cosmic rays 
miss your
DNA by some miracle? Or something similar. Of course you end up rather 
frail in
99.% of the branches, so QTI seems to suggest an eternity of 
being not
quite dead. Not a great prospect...



Eventually the probability of the simulation hypothesis ( 
http://www.simulation-argument.com/faq.html ) takes over.  The simulation hypothesis 
(that you exist in a simulation) essentially is already 100% if you believe in MWI. The 
question is what proportion of your explanations are simulations.  Say it is 1%.  Then 
when the probability of your organic survival drops ever lower in the many worlds, then 
your survival through the simulation hypothesis becomes increasingly likely.


?? What's the difference between the simulation and 'another world' (or this world for 
that matter)?


Brent


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:18 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/12/2013 4:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




 On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:45 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 On 11/12/2013 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 12 Nov 2013, at 04:44, meekerdb wrote:


   Experience may be like that; everything has 'experience', it's just
 not human experience and when you stop having human experience you're dead.


 Why? If by dying we remember being something different from human, I
 would still feel like I am surviving. (Amazingly, salvia can lead to such
 an experience/hallucination).


  Yes, if you remember.  But I don't remember anything earlier than about
 age 4 and neither do other people I know.  Which then implies that we are
 not past eternal and so it is possible to not be future eternal.


  You may be jumping to conclusions.  All that implies is that you don't
 currently have access to infinite memories.  Having infinite memories, and
 having access to infinite memories, are quite different from having an
 eternal past.


 Of course I don't even have access to memories of last Nov 12. It's not
 the absence of memories of 1000yrs ago, it's absence of *all* memory before
 1944.


Sure, but there may be other explanations for that:
1. Tunneling through a diminished state of conscious, as someone falling
asleep or dying into Brent Meeker the fetus, or Brent Meeker waking up this
morning.
2. Engaging in an ancestor simulation as a member of an advanced
technological race (future humans or aliens) to experience life as a human.
3. A God-like mind who has decided to temporarily forget what it is like to
be God.



 Is it your theory that there is a first Brent experience, which was not
 the continuation of any prior experience, an experiencless predecessor.


All experience may be cyclical in the very long run, going through every
state of consciousness eventually.  I think this may be implied if there is
always some initial conscious state from which all conscious states emerge
(and perhaps all eventually return).


   I could buy that, since I've been unconscious a few times.  But then
 that seems to allow there are experiences with no continuation in the
 sense of continuity.  They are just connected by memories or other
 similarities.


There is a continuation from being anesthetized to waking up from
anesthesia.  Would you say the same true for an amnesiac being anesthetized?

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:20 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/12/2013 5:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

 On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:57 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

  On 13 November 2013 11:12, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 Every one of the perhaps inifinite copies of you will grow old and die
 in less than 150 years.
 There is no quantum immortality


  A pretty bold statement. I don't see that the laws of physics require
 this - there must be a small chance of living to be 200, e.g. if a load of
 cosmic rays miss your DNA by some miracle? Or something similar. Of course
 you end up rather frail in 99.% of the branches, so QTI seems
 to suggest an eternity of being not quite dead. Not a great prospect...



  Eventually the probability of the simulation hypothesis (
 http://www.simulation-argument.com/faq.html ) takes over.  The simulation
 hypothesis (that you exist in a simulation) essentially is already 100% if
 you believe in MWI.  The question is what proportion of your explanations
 are simulations.  Say it is 1%.  Then when the probability of your organic
 survival drops ever lower in the many worlds, then your survival through
 the simulation hypothesis becomes increasingly likely.


 ?? What's the difference between the simulation and 'another world' (or
 this world for that matter)?



The difference is the world that is simulating ours has access to
information about ours, and we/our memories may continue there (in that
other universe).  Therefore, we can survive even the heat death of this
universe.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 11/12/2013 5:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
There is a continuation from being anesthetized to waking up from anesthesia.

Did you leave out a no? There is a continuation, but not of consciousness.

Would you say the same true for an amnesiac being anesthetized?

I think so. An amnesiac is just someone who can't remember some significant block of
time that almost anyone else would. Last January while vacationing in Hawaii my daughter
went down the beach and took a class in surfing. According to the instructor she did fine
and nothing strange happened. She came back to the hotel, went in and took a shower.
When she came out of the shower she realized that she could not remember *anything* about
that day. She also had short term memory problems, e.g. she would repeat something she
had just said a minute before. We took her to the hospital; they couldn't find any cause
and finally just said, Well that happens sometimes to people and nobody knows why. Over
the next day her short term memory became normal - but she still doesn't remember that day.

Brent

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 13 November 2013 14:09, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:




 On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.comwrote:

 Every one of the perhaps inifinite copies of you will grow old and die in
 less than 150 years.
 There is no quantum immortality

 I guess that settles it.

 Phew, glad we got that sorted out!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013-11-12 Thread Richard Ruquist

Simple. Shooting yourself with a gun or whatever means you use to end your
life in one universe does not guarranttee that you do not grow in all other
universes. Unless the laws of physics differ across the multiverse, which I
understand to be incorrect, your copies will grow old and die in every
universe.


On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:




 2013/11/12 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com

 Every one of the perhaps inifinite copies of you will grow old and die in
 less than 150 years.
 There is no quantum immortality


 Well it's cool asserting things... but you should develop more, all I'm
 saying is that if MWI is true, the argument follows. It's clear that if you
 use other premisses it follows or it doesn't, but without knowing more I
 don't know, but as you seems sure, please develop. Plus I'm not arguing
 that MWI is true (or that QI is true for that matter), just following the
 consequences if MWI is true.

 Quentin



 On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 1:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 1:02 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 12:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2013/11/12 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/12/2013 12:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

 This is ASSA, and I find that absurd, there is no absolute
 probability of being alive, probability is only meaningful between two
 moments...


  But there's a probability of being alive at time t in the future,


  This is ASSA


 and that can become arbitrarily small, and in fact it is arbitrarily
 small


  If absolute measure makes sense, then your absolute measure is
 always decreasing, still in MWI, as there is always a next moment (which
 will be as *real* as the previous one), I don't see how ASSA is relevant
 for the question.


  I guess it depends on how you value future states.  If only those
 you exist in matter then you can ignore the ASSA.  No need for life
 insurance.  No concern about global warming.


  That does not follow... RSSA is moment to moment... If you have a
 gun in front of you and you shoot in your head and if MWI is true, there
 will be more branches where you are crippled than where you are perfectly
 safe (and a hell of a lot more where you're dead, but *we don't count 
 where
 you're not*).


  But that's part of what bothers me about this idea.  How
 crippled/brain-damaged can you be and still count as a continuation?  Are
 there degrees of continuation?


  As long as you still feel you, that counts.


 If so, why can't the degrees asymptote to zero?


  It is, reread my previous message, there is a continuum of such
 continuations. The one that don't count are the one where nothing is left
 from you. I would say also, there is a continuum but by RSSA, nearest
 continuation should have higher probability.








 - so all rational decisions will be based on assuming it becomes
 zero.  Right?


  I don't see how decisions come into play here, rational decisions
 depends on the one taking them... I would rationally choose to minimize 
 arm
 for me (so as not to put my life in jeopardy), because if MWI is true 
 *and*
 with RSSA, me in front on a shotgun, will likely result me being crippled
 while not dead with a hell lot more probability than being perfectly safe


  But most such events, like being shot with a shotgun, are
 essentially classical which implies that your continuations depend on
 extremely improbable events


  Sure, but the point is *ẗhere is a continuation*; that's all what is
 needed for the argument to follow.


  There is a continuation seems to slough over what counts as a
 continuation and whether we should care about it.


  There is a continuum of continuations, the point is there is, so you
 either argue MWI is false, but your argument is pointeless if MWI is true,
 that's the way it is.


 Well I'm certainly not dogmatically assuming MWI.  In fact I'm testing
 whether it leads to absurdities.


 Sure, the point is that if MWI is true, the argument follows.






 If the only continuations are quite different from what you think of
 as Quentin Anciaux, do they still count?


  The only thing that count is 1st POV...


 So *you* Quentin Anciaux (incidentally, how do pronounce that?) don't
 necessarily continue.  It is just that there is a continuation of 1p POVs.
 So we're down to the question of what constitutes a 1p POV.


 I know what is my own, don't know for you, but I assume you do know it
 for yourself.






  And I don't think you can just rely on the continuity of Hilbert
 space evolution because the time scale of that evolution can be much 
 faster
 than the sequences of conscious thought.  So as far QM goes you could
 evolve from Quentin Anciaux to Neo (or to Brent Meeker) in a millisecond.




 - Rumsfeld's unknown

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 13 November 2013 16:19, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 Simple. Shooting yourself with a gun or whatever means you use to end your
 life in one universe does not guarranttee that you do not grow in all other
 universes. Unless the laws of physics differ across the multiverse, which I
 understand to be incorrect, your copies will grow old and die in every
 universe.


I think it would help if you put your comment beneath whatever you were
replying to. :)

However, assuming I understand what you're saying I will attempt a reply...

The laws of physics don't *mandate* growing old and dying, they just make
it overwhelmingly likely. But in a multiverse everything happens, even
incredibly unlikely things...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013-11-12 Thread Richard Ruquist

My email service does not allow me to interleave comments.

Regarding your reply, the laws of biophysics does MANDATE growing old and
dying.

I think the more advanced understanding of the multiverse is that
incredibly unlikely things do not happen.
As I recall the argument was based on decoherence and the relationship of
frequency of a particular universe to probability.
So if a universe is unlikely, it will take a longtime to materialize. I
imagined this to be longer than your lifetime.
Richard


On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 13 November 2013 16:19, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 Simple. Shooting yourself with a gun or whatever means you use to end
 your life in one universe does not guarranttee that you do not grow in all
 other universes. Unless the laws of physics differ across the multiverse,
 which I understand to be incorrect, your copies will grow old and die in
 every universe.


 I think it would help if you put your comment beneath whatever you were
 replying to. :)

 However, assuming I understand what you're saying I will attempt a reply...

 The laws of physics don't *mandate* growing old and dying, they just make
 it overwhelmingly likely. But in a multiverse everything happens, even
 incredibly unlikely things...

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind


On 11/12/2013 7:28 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 November 2013 16:19, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com 
mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote:


Simple. Shooting yourself with a gun or whatever means you use to end your 
life in
one universe does not guarranttee that you do not grow in all other 
universes.
Unless the laws of physics differ across the multiverse, which I understand 
to be
incorrect, your copies will grow old and die in every universe.


I think it would help if you put your comment beneath whatever you were 
replying to. :)

However, assuming I understand what you're saying I will attempt a reply...

The laws of physics don't /mandate/ growing old and dying, they just make it 
overwhelmingly likely. But in a multiverse everything happens, even incredibly unlikely 
things...


That's another dubious popularization.  Certainly weird things can happen in a QM world. 
But *everything*?  There are still conservation laws, superselection rules, limited speed 
of signaling.  Repeating  measurement doesn't produce every value, it produces the same 
eigenvalue as before.  Many QM processes are deterministic in one world, c.f. 
arXiv:quant-ph/070212v1.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 13 November 2013 16:51, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 My email service does not allow me to interleave comments.


Well in that case maybe you could cut and paste the relevant quote. There
was an awful lot of text after your comment, I still have no idea what you
were replying to.


 Regarding your reply, the laws of biophysics does MANDATE growing old and
 dying.


No it doesn't, it's all statistical. The laws of physics only mandate
growing old and dying to the extent that they mandate eggs breaking rather
than broken eggs reforming into whole ones. However the underlying physics
of eggs breaking is a series of time-reversible operations at the atomic
level, hence it is possible for broken eggs to mend themselves if all the
atomic movements were exactly right, which they never are in practice, of
course. But in a multiverse such an unlikely event would occur somewhere.


 I think the more advanced understanding of the multiverse is that
 incredibly unlikely things do not happen.


In that case it isn't the multiverse of quantum theory, which allows all
possible events to occur, including the very unlikely ones.


 As I recall the argument was based on decoherence and the relationship of
 frequency of a particular universe to probability.
 So if a universe is unlikely, it will take a longtime to materialize. I
 imagined this to be longer than your lifetime.


As I understand it the multiverse as envisaged by Everett and Deutsch
involves all possible outcomes of a given situation occurring, with no time
delay (except for whatever time delay would occur anyway). Decoherence is
the mechanism that stops different branches of the multiverse interacting,
it has nothing to do with the probability of a branch existing.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 13 November 2013 17:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/12/2013 7:28 PM, LizR wrote:

 On 13 November 2013 16:19, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 Simple. Shooting yourself with a gun or whatever means you use to end
 your life in one universe does not guarranttee that you do not grow in all
 other universes. Unless the laws of physics differ across the multiverse,
 which I understand to be incorrect, your copies will grow old and die in
 every universe.


  I think it would help if you put your comment beneath whatever you were
 replying to. :)

  However, assuming I understand what you're saying I will attempt a
 reply...

  The laws of physics don't *mandate* growing old and dying, they just
 make it overwhelmingly likely. But in a multiverse everything happens, even
 incredibly unlikely things...


 That's another dubious popularization.  Certainly weird things can happen
 in a QM world. But *everything*?  There are still conservation laws,
 superselection rules, limited speed of signaling.  Repeating  measurement
 doesn't produce every value, it produces the same eigenvalue as before.
 Many QM processes are deterministic in one world, c.f.
 arXiv:quant-ph/070212v1.

 I apologise for my over hasty phraseology. I meant to say everything that
is physically possible happens - i.e. all physically possible outcomes of
each (apparently probabalistic) quantum event. I didn't mean to imply
that *physically
impossible* things happen (and it would have been nice if you'd done me the
courtesy of thinking that perhaps that was what I meant, rather than
assuming that oh, she must be spouting dubious popularisations! as you
appear to have done.)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 11/12/2013 8:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 November 2013 17:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:

On 11/12/2013 7:28 PM, LizR wrote:

On 13 November 2013 16:19, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote:

Simple. Shooting yourself with a gun or whatever means you use to end
your life
in one universe does not guarranttee that you do not grow in all other
universes. Unless the laws of physics differ across the multiverse,
which I
understand to be incorrect, your copies will grow old and die in every
universe.

I think it would help if you put your comment beneath whatever you were
replying to. :)

However, assuming I understand what you're saying I will attempt a reply...

The laws of physics don't /mandate/ growing old and dying, they just make it
overwhelmingly likely. But in a multiverse everything happens, even
incredibly
unlikely things...

That's another dubious popularization. Certainly weird things can happen
in a QM
world. But *everything*? There are still conservation laws, superselection
rules,
limited speed of signaling. Repeating measurement doesn't produce every
value,
it produces the same eigenvalue as before. Many QM processes are
deterministic in
one world, c.f. arXiv:quant-ph/070212v1.

I apologise for my over hasty phraseology. I meant to say everything that is physically
possible happens - i.e. all physically possible outcomes of each (apparently
probabalistic) quantum event. I didn't mean to imply that /physically impossible/ things
happen (and it would have been nice if you'd done me the courtesy of thinking that
perhaps that was what I meant, rather than assuming that oh, she must be spouting
dubious popularisations! as you appear to have done.)

Sorry. Didn't mean to offend. But it's a point that bothers me about a lot of these
everything theories. Yes, they only mean everything that is possible - but that could
be a big hole in theory when you start to talk about really strange things. For example,
holographic theory (combined with QM) limits the amount of information within a Hubble
radius. It's not immediately obvious whether that prohibits some evolution of the quantum
state or not, but it's plausible that it does.

Brent

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 8:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 On 11/12/2013 5:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

 There is a continuation from being anesthetized to waking up from
 anesthesia.


 Did you leave out a no?


It was intentional, I meant there is a continuation, as in subjectively one
moment leads directly to the next.


 There is a continuation, but not of consciousness.


But isn't there?  Are you saying you don't survive general anesthesia?
Does it not seem like you are conscious one moment, then conscious of the
next?



  Would you say the same true for an amnesiac being anesthetized?


 I think so. An amnesiac is just someone who can't remember some
 significant block of time that almost anyone else would.  Last January
 while vacationing in Hawaii my daughter went down the beach and took a
 class in surfing.  According to the instructor she did fine and nothing
 strange happened.  She came back to the hotel, went in and took a shower.
  When she came out of the shower she realized that she could not remember
 *anything* about that day.  She also had short term memory problems, e.g.
 she would repeat something she had just said a minute before.  We took her
 to the hospital; they couldn't find any cause and finally just said, Well
 that happens sometimes to people and nobody knows why.  Over the next day
 her short term memory became normal - but she still doesn't remember that
 day.


Interesting, I was not aware that kind of thing can just happen to people.

In my hypothetical, however, I meant someone with absolutely no memories.
Is it not the case they can have a (subjectively) continuous experience of
losing consciousness and regaining it?

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 Simple. Shooting yourself with a gun or whatever means you use to end your
 life in one universe does not guarranttee that you do not grow in all other
 universes. Unless the laws of physics differ across the multiverse, which I
 understand to be incorrect, your copies will grow old and die in every
 universe.



Richard, see the link I posted earlier, ( http://higgo.com/qti/rplaga.htm )
in which James Higgo suggests that via quantum mechanics, his particles
could spontaneously rearrange himself into a younger version of himself,
hence he would de-age in a very small fraction of universes in which he
exists.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 11/12/2013 9:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 8:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 11/12/2013 5:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

There is a continuation from being anesthetized to waking up from
anesthesia.

Did you leave out a no?

It was intentional, I meant there is a continuation, as in subjectively one moment leads
directly to the next.

There is a continuation, but not of consciousness.

But isn't there? Are you saying you don't survive general anesthesia? Does it not seem
like you are conscious one moment, then conscious of the next?

Yes, but it also seems like there's a gap, a discontinuity in memory and experience. Which
is not surprising. Our brains do a lot of creative 'filling in' of our perception of the
world. But when the gap gets to big your brain doesn't know what to put in there and you
notice the discontinuity. I once crashed off a big jump in a motocross race. I remember
going up the face of the jump...and then the next thing I remember is looking up into the
face of this guy who was saying, Are you all right? Notice that's the way people
usually describe it: ...the next thing I remember was...

Would you say the same true for an amnesiac being anesthetized?

I think so. An amnesiac is just someone who can't remember some
significant block
of time that almost anyone else would. Last January while vacationing in
Hawaii my
daughter went down the beach and took a class in surfing. According to the
instructor she did fine and nothing strange happened. She came back to the
hotel,
went in and took a shower. When she came out of the shower she realized
that she
could not remember *anything* about that day. She also had short term
memory
problems, e.g. she would repeat something she had just said a minute
before. We
took her to the hospital; they couldn't find any cause and finally just said,
Well
that happens sometimes to people and nobody knows why. Over the next day
her short
term memory became normal - but she still doesn't remember that day.

Interesting, I was not aware that kind of thing can just happen to people.

In my hypothetical, however, I meant someone with absolutely no memories. Is it not the
case they can have a (subjectively) continuous experience of losing consciousness and
regaining it?

But did you mean someone who had no memories before some point? Or did you mean someone
who cannot form any memories? I don't think a person who cannot form *any* memories is
even conscious, at least in the normal sense. Even the rare clinical case of a person who
is said to be unable to form memories, like Gustave Molaison, the person seems to have a
memory span of a minute or so. Whether he could notice the gap caused by anesthesia or a
concussion, I don't know.

Brent

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 13 November 2013 17:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/12/2013 8:08 PM, LizR wrote:

 On 13 November 2013 17:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

   On 11/12/2013 7:28 PM, LizR wrote:

 On 13 November 2013 16:19, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 Simple. Shooting yourself with a gun or whatever means you use to end
 your life in one universe does not guarranttee that you do not grow in all
 other universes. Unless the laws of physics differ across the multiverse,
 which I understand to be incorrect, your copies will grow old and die in
 every universe.


  I think it would help if you put your comment beneath whatever you were
 replying to. :)

  However, assuming I understand what you're saying I will attempt a
 reply...

  The laws of physics don't *mandate* growing old and dying, they just
 make it overwhelmingly likely. But in a multiverse everything happens, even
 incredibly unlikely things...


  That's another dubious popularization.  Certainly weird things can
 happen in a QM world. But *everything*?  There are still conservation laws,
 superselection rules, limited speed of signaling.  Repeating  measurement
 doesn't produce every value, it produces the same eigenvalue as before.
 Many QM processes are deterministic in one world, c.f.
 arXiv:quant-ph/070212v1.

  I apologise for my over hasty phraseology. I meant to say everything
 that is physically possible happens - i.e. all physically possible outcomes
 of each (apparently probabalistic) quantum event. I didn't mean to imply
 that *physically impossible* things happen (and it would have been nice
 if you'd done me the courtesy of thinking that perhaps that was what I
 meant, rather than assuming that oh, she must be spouting dubious
 popularisations! as you appear to have done.)


 Sorry.  Didn't mean to offend.  But it's a point that bothers me about a
 lot of these everything theories.  Yes, they only mean everything that is
 possible - but that could be a big hole in theory when you start to talk
 about really strange things.  For example, holographic theory (combined
 with QM) limits the amount of information within a Hubble radius.  It's not
 immediately obvious whether that prohibits some evolution of the quantum
 state or not, but it's plausible that it does.


Sorry for overreacting. Obviously one has to go to the equations and see
what they say. In the case of quantum mechanics I believe they say that any
interaction has a continuum of outcomes, so we're immediately dealing with
infinity. David Deutsch has been known to talk about Harry Potter
universes in which magic appears to work thanks to quantum uncertainty, so
it seems to me that if you take the multiverse seriously you have an
incredible range of outcomes - none of which violate the various
conservation principles, but some - an infinitesimal sliver - which appear
to. So for example, it's possible that in tiny parts of the multiverse
objects spontaneously materialise from quantum fluctuations - a teapot in
orbit between Earth and Mars, say.

This isn't something I feel very comfortable with, to be honest. Like Blaise
Pascal's The eternal silence of these infinite spaces terrifies me, I
feel - to say the least - frightened just contemplating the possibility
that everything (including me) is replicated infinitely. It is such a
mind-boggling idea that it seems to utterly dwarf anything I can possibly
do, or even think. Everything has been thought already, an infinite number
of times. Any fiction I may invent has happened somewhere (an infinite
number of times). It's quite - daunting.

Holographic theory indicates that the amount of entropy in a given volume
is less than the entropy of a black hole of the same radius, which I
believe is proportional to the surface area of that black hole. But wasn't
that result contradicted by the recent discovery that there isn't a
granularity to space larger than some minute fraction of the Planck size?

Excuse me I have to go and lie down...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 11 November 2013 18:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/10/2013 5:59 PM, LizR wrote:

 On 11 November 2013 13:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/10/2013 3:54 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:


  Sure, but the thing is that *you have to*, and asking such question at
 that stage is very likely... you can't be 10⁵ years old before having been
 1 year old... it's simply nonsense.


  So you're falling back on the all-purpose 'everything' answer; whatever
 you observe is one of everything and that why everything is consistent with
 it - like why I'm not a Chinaman?

  There isn't any falling back here that I can see. It seems quite
 reasonable to say you have to pass through your birthdays in ascending
 order. I can't see why that is problematic / contraversial?


 Sure, but if I live infinitely long I will have almost all my experiences
 older than 75.  So when I note that I'm not that old and that seems
 improbable, it's not an answer to say, Well, less than 75 is an age you
 must be sometime.  Jason at least had an answer, although I don't think
 his answer leads to immortality either.


I didn't say 75 is an age you must be sometime - I said 75 is an age you
must be before you can be 76. You can only reach age N by traversing all
lower ages first. You can't use a self-sampling argument to show that you
shouldn't be your current age if you *have* to pass through that age before
you can experience any greater ages.

This is an answer.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013-11-11 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 09 Nov 2013, at 20:13, meekerdb wrote:


On 11/9/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Tegmark thinks he will survive, if the gun works sufficiently well.  
if not he might degrade and eventually ... die. This makes no sense  
to me. It is annoying, but we can degrade a lot, yet we can't die  
(with just comp, or, ITSM, with just the quantum MWI). With comp,  
we can expect jump, and consciousness phase transition, though.


Aside from not finding myself the oldest person on the planet, I see  
a problem with quantum immortality in that quantum mechanics is time- 
reverse invariant.  So I should be 'past immortal' also.


Can you imagine that immortality *is* in the past. And well, that was  
nice, but now you give some chances to mortality, just to compare.





But as Mark Twain said, I do not fear death, in view of the fact  
that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was  
born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.


If you recognize yourself in some other (human, or not) being(s) that  
is not clear at all.



Bruno

If we are what our brains do it is easy to see why we should live  
from past (low entropy) to future (higher entropy), be born and die.




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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013/11/11 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/10/2013 5:59 PM, LizR wrote:

 On 11 November 2013 13:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/10/2013 3:54 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:


  Sure, but the thing is that *you have to*, and asking such question at
 that stage is very likely... you can't be 10⁵ years old before having been
 1 year old... it's simply nonsense.


  So you're falling back on the all-purpose 'everything' answer; whatever
 you observe is one of everything and that why everything is consistent with
 it - like why I'm not a Chinaman?

  There isn't any falling back here that I can see. It seems quite
 reasonable to say you have to pass through your birthdays in ascending
 order. I can't see why that is problematic / contraversial?


 Sure, but if I live infinitely long I will have almost all my experiences
 older than 75.  So when I note that I'm not that old and that seems
 improbable,


The thing is as I said is that you have to be *first* 75 before being
older... you're talking like every moment of your life was chosen
randomly... they aren't (at least for me) before today, it was yesterday,
not a random moment, and tomorrow will be tomorrow not a random moment in
my life. Using your argument I should never have been a child.

Quentin


 it's not an answer to say, Well, less than 75 is an age you must be
 sometime.  Jason at least had an answer, although I don't think his answer
 leads to immortality either.

 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

Oops I meant OR a googol years, of course.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 11 November 2013 22:47, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

 2013/11/11 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/10/2013 5:59 PM, LizR wrote:

 On 11 November 2013 13:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/10/2013 3:54 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:


  Sure, but the thing is that *you have to*, and asking such question at
 that stage is very likely... you can't be 10⁵ years old before having been
 1 year old... it's simply nonsense.


  So you're falling back on the all-purpose 'everything' answer; whatever
 you observe is one of everything and that why everything is consistent with
 it - like why I'm not a Chinaman?

  There isn't any falling back here that I can see. It seems quite
 reasonable to say you have to pass through your birthdays in ascending
 order. I can't see why that is problematic / contraversial?


 Sure, but if I live infinitely long I will have almost all my experiences
 older than 75.  So when I note that I'm not that old and that seems
 improbable,


 The thing is as I said is that you have to be *first* 75 before being
 older... you're talking like every moment of your life was chosen
 randomly... they aren't (at least for me) before today, it was yesterday,
 not a random moment, and tomorrow will be tomorrow not a random moment in
 my life. Using your argument I should never have been a child.


I must admit I'm baffled that the normally sensible Mr Meeker finds it odd
that one has to live through one's life consecutively, with or without
quantum immortality. As stated, you can't use a Bayesian selection argument
when the points you're chosen are constrained to occur sequentially,
whether you're going to live to be 100, 1000, a million of a googol years,
you still have to start at 1 and work your way up.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013-11-11 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 10 Nov 2013, at 19:31, meekerdb wrote:


On 11/9/2013 11:37 PM, LizR wrote:

On 10 November 2013 08:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/9/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Tegmark thinks he will survive, if the gun works sufficiently  
well. if not he might degrade and eventually ... die. This makes  
no sense to me. It is annoying, but we can degrade a lot, yet we  
can't die (with just comp, or, ITSM, with just the quantum MWI).  
With comp, we can expect jump, and consciousness phase  
transition, though.


Aside from not finding myself the oldest person on the planet, I  
see a problem with quantum immortality in that quantum mechanics is  
time-reverse invariant.  So I should be 'past immortal' also.  But  
as Mark Twain said, I do not fear death, in view of the fact that  
I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was  
born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.   
If we are what our brains do it is easy to see why we should live  
from past (low entropy) to future (higher entropy), be born and die.


Leaving aside time reversibility (which I am myself rather hot on)  
for a moment, if you're quantum immortal you can only expect to  
eventually find yourself the oldest person. Give it time. You have  
to go through the bit beforehand beforehand...


True, but finding yourself in the first 1/N of your life when N=inf  
is highly unlikely.


Accepting some absolute self-sampling assumption (ASSA), which should  
not be assumed. This does not mean that you are not doing a point, but  
that you should recast it in the Relative SSA (RSSA).


Bruno


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 11/11/2013 12:11 AM, LizR wrote:
On 11 November 2013 18:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:

On 11/10/2013 5:59 PM, LizR wrote:

On 11 November 2013 13:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 11/10/2013 3:54 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Sure, but the thing is that *you have to*, and asking such question at
that
stage is very likely... you can't be 10⁵ years old before having been 1
year
old... it's simply nonsense.

So you're falling back on the all-purpose 'everything' answer; whatever
you
observe is one of everything and that why everything is consistent with
it -
like why I'm not a Chinaman?

There isn't any falling back here that I can see. It seems quite reasonable
to say
you have to pass through your birthdays in ascending order. I can't see why
that is
problematic / contraversial?

Sure, but if I live infinitely long I will have almost all my experiences
older than
75. So when I note that I'm not that old and that seems improbable, it's
not an
answer to say, Well, less than 75 is an age you must be sometime. Jason
at least
had an answer, although I don't think his answer leads to immortality
either.

I didn't say 75 is an age you must be sometime - I said 75 is an age you must be
before you can be 76. You can only reach age N by traversing all lower ages first. You
can't use a self-sampling argument to show that you shouldn't be your current age if you
/have/ to pass through that age before you can experience any greater ages.

I don't see the relevance of that. I had to pass through being 5 too. Suppose you are
shown a machine and told that it is counting to infinity, i.e. indefinitely. You're asked
to guess what number it's on. Would you be surprised if it were on 75?

Brent

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013/11/11 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/11/2013 12:11 AM, LizR wrote:

  On 11 November 2013 18:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

   On 11/10/2013 5:59 PM, LizR wrote:

 On 11 November 2013 13:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/10/2013 3:54 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:


  Sure, but the thing is that *you have to*, and asking such question at
 that stage is very likely... you can't be 10⁵ years old before having been
 1 year old... it's simply nonsense.


  So you're falling back on the all-purpose 'everything' answer; whatever
 you observe is one of everything and that why everything is consistent with
 it - like why I'm not a Chinaman?

  There isn't any falling back here that I can see. It seems quite
 reasonable to say you have to pass through your birthdays in ascending
 order. I can't see why that is problematic / contraversial?


  Sure, but if I live infinitely long I will have almost all my
 experiences older than 75.  So when I note that I'm not that old and that
 seems improbable, it's not an answer to say, Well, less than 75 is an age
 you must be sometime.  Jason at least had an answer, although I don't
 think his answer leads to immortality either.


  I didn't say 75 is an age you must be sometime - I said 75 is an age
 you must be before you can be 76. You can only reach age N by traversing
 all lower ages first. You can't use a self-sampling argument to show that
 you shouldn't be your current age if you *have* to pass through that age
 before you can experience any greater ages.


 I don't see the relevance of that.  I had to pass through being 5 too.
 Suppose you are shown a machine and told that it is counting to infinity,
 i.e. indefinitely.  You're asked to guess what number it's on. Would you be
 surprised if it were on 75?


It depends how fast it counts and when it was built... If the machine was
built recently, and it added 1 every year... no I wouldn't.

Quentin


 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 11/11/2013 1:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Sure, but if I live infinitely long I will have almost all my experiences
older than
75. So when I note that I'm not that old and that seems improbable,

The thing is as I said is that you have to be *first* 75 before being older... you're
talking like every moment of your life was chosen randomly... they aren't (at least for
me) before today, it was yesterday, not a random moment, and tomorrow will be tomorrow
not a random moment in my life. Using your argument I should never have been a child.

No, I'm just saying that sampling your life at random I'm less likely to find you being
less than a year old than being less than a thousand years old.

If my life is infinite, then it seems surprising that I find myself less than
75yrs old.

I don't think this is a very strong argument, since it would apply no matter what age I
found myself to be. But it seems curious that I find it to be true of everyone around me
also. As though we all started more or less together. So we weren't past eternal either.

Brent

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013/11/11 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/11/2013 1:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

  Sure, but if I live infinitely long I will have almost all my
 experiences older than 75.  So when I note that I'm not that old and that
 seems improbable,


  The thing is as I said is that you have to be *first* 75 before being
 older... you're talking like every moment of your life was chosen
 randomly... they aren't (at least for me) before today, it was yesterday,
 not a random moment, and tomorrow will be tomorrow not a random moment in
 my life. Using your argument I should never have been a child.


 No, I'm just saying that sampling your life at random


Your life is not sampled at random, you have to be one year old before
being 75; before being 1000 before being 10¹⁰.


 I'm less likely to find you


You find you every day, according to you, every day should not happen, only
being 10¹⁰⁰ is likely, it's just non-sense,
your life is not random sampled, yesterday happen before today and before
tomorrow. That doesn't make today less likely than tomorrow.


 being less than a year old than being less than a thousand years old.

 If my life is infinite, then it seems surprising that I find myself less
 than 75yrs old.


It's not, because it is mandatory that in that long lifespan you find
yourself 75. You cannot be very old before having been less old. Your life
is sequential and that sequence cannot be avoided, even if you'll live an
infinity of time.


 I don't think this is a very strong argument, since it would apply no
 matter what age I found myself to be.


Exactly, it's just ASSA is non-sensical.


  But it seems curious that I find it to be true of everyone around me
 also.  As though we all started more or less together.  So we weren't past
 eternal either.


I don't see how QI imples past eternality, it's not mandatory that infinity
goes both way, things can have a start without an end.

Quentin



 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind


On 11/11/2013 10:42 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




2013/11/11 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net

On 11/11/2013 12:11 AM, LizR wrote:

On 11 November 2013 18:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 11/10/2013 5:59 PM, LizR wrote:

On 11 November 2013 13:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 11/10/2013 3:54 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:


Sure, but the thing is that *you have to*, and asking such question 
at
that stage is very likely... you can't be 10⁵ years old before 
having
been 1 year old... it's simply nonsense.


So you're falling back on the all-purpose 'everything' answer; 
whatever
you observe is one of everything and that why everything is 
consistent
with it - like why I'm not a Chinaman?

There isn't any falling back here that I can see. It seems quite 
reasonable to
say you have to pass through your birthdays in ascending order. I can't 
see
why that is problematic / contraversial?


Sure, but if I live infinitely long I will have almost all my 
experiences older
than 75.  So when I note that I'm not that old and that seems 
improbable, it's
not an answer to say, Well, less than 75 is an age you must be sometime. 
Jason at least had an answer, although I don't think his answer leads to

immortality either.


I didn't say 75 is an age you must be sometime - I said 75 is an age you 
must be
before you can be 76. You can only reach age N by traversing all lower 
ages first.
You can't use a self-sampling argument to show that you shouldn't be your 
current
age if you /have/ to pass through that age before you can experience any 
greater ages.


I don't see the relevance of that.  I had to pass through being 5 too.  
Suppose you
are shown a machine and told that it is counting to infinity, i.e. indefinitely. 
You're asked to guess what number it's on. Would you be surprised if it were on 75?



It depends how fast it counts and when it was built... If the machine was built 
recently, and it added 1 every year... no I wouldn't.




Suppose you were told it's been around forever.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind


On 11/11/2013 11:21 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
You find you every day, according to you, every day should not happen, only being 
10¹⁰⁰ is likely, it's just non-sense, your life is not 
random sampled, yesterday happen before today and before tomorrow. That doesn't make 
today less likely than tomorrow.


Sure, but it makes the interval (0,75) less likely than the interval (75, inf).

But what's your analysis?  Everybody I've ever heard of who was more than 40yrs older than 
me is dead.  Do you not see that as evidence against my immortality?


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013/11/11 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/11/2013 11:21 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

 You find you every day, according to you, every day should not happen,
 only being 10¹⁰⁰ is likely, it's just
 non-sense, your life is not random sampled, yesterday happen before today
 and before tomorrow. That doesn't make today less likely than tomorrow.


 Sure, but it makes the interval (0,75) less likely than the interval (75,
 inf).


Only if your current moment was sampled from all the available you
moments, but that's not the case...



 But what's your analysis?  Everybody I've ever heard of who was more than
 40yrs older than me is dead.  Do you not see that as evidence against my
 immortality?


I see this as evidence that if immortality is true it cannot be shared...
by itself it does not rule it out.

Quentin



 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 12 November 2013 09:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/11/2013 11:21 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

 You find you every day, according to you, every day should not happen,
 only being 10¹⁰⁰ is likely, it's just
 non-sense, your life is not random sampled, yesterday happen before today
 and before tomorrow. That doesn't make today less likely than tomorrow.


 Sure, but it makes the interval (0,75) less likely than the interval (75,
 inf).

 Unless you're Billy Pilgrim from  Slaughterhouse 5 this argument doesn't
make sense, beause you are forced to sample your days in ascending order.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 11/11/2013 3:39 PM, LizR wrote:
On 12 November 2013 09:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:

On 11/11/2013 11:21 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

You find you every day, according to you, every day should not happen, only
being
10¹⁰⁰ is likely, it's just non-sense, your life
is not
random sampled, yesterday happen before today and before tomorrow. That
doesn't
make today less likely than tomorrow.

Sure, but it makes the interval (0,75) less likely than the interval (75,
inf).

Unless you're Billy Pilgrim from Slaughterhouse 5 this argument doesn't make sense,
beause you are forced to sample your days in ascending order.

But what does that have to do with the probabilities? A sample is when I ask myself,
how probable is it that my age is what it is today. I don't have to do this everyday. In
fact I'm very unlikely to have done it before age 4. So I don't see why sequence is
determinative. ISTM is only implies that tomorrow will be less likely than today (since I
may not ask tomorrow; possibly because I'm dead).

Suppose you're Benjamin Button. For him would it be OK to say it's surprising
I'm only 75?

Brent

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 12 November 2013 13:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/11/2013 3:39 PM, LizR wrote:

 On 12 November 2013 09:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/11/2013 11:21 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

 You find you every day, according to you, every day should not happen,
 only being 10¹⁰⁰ is likely, it's just
 non-sense, your life is not random sampled, yesterday happen before today
 and before tomorrow. That doesn't make today less likely than tomorrow.


  Sure, but it makes the interval (0,75) less likely than the interval
 (75, inf).

  Unless you're Billy Pilgrim from  Slaughterhouse 5 this argument
 doesn't make sense, beause you are forced to sample your days in ascending
 order.


 But what does that have to do with the probabilities?  A sample is when
 I ask myself, how probable is it that my age is what it is today.  I don't
 have to do this everyday.  In fact I'm very unlikely to have done it before
 age 4.  So I don't see why sequence is determinative.  ISTM is only implies
 that tomorrow will be less likely than today (since I may not ask tomorrow;
 possibly because I'm dead).


Sequence is determinative because that's how the universe works. Tomorrow,
and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day, to
the last syllable of recorded time. That's the second law doing its thing,
and unless you've got very good reason to think otherwise, you shouldn't be
surprised that it is. All we're saying is that you should be unsurprised to
find yourself living your life in ascending order. You have to pass through
your current age at some point, unless you die first, and you should expect
to do so before you reach a greater age. If at your current age you ask how
probable it is that you are your current age, the answer is 1. If you're
quantum immortal then you will have the same probability every time you ask
yourself that question into the indefinite future. You are always 100%
likely to be your present age!


 Suppose you're Benjamin Button.  For him would it be OK to say it's
 surprising I'm only 75?


I don't know anything about Benjamin Button.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

Actually, if you were Billy Pilgrim, you would know immediately you fell
into the chronosyncinastic infundibulum (sp?) whether you were quantum
immortal or not, because the chances would be infinitesimal of ending up in
the first N years of your life, where N is *any* finite value. In fact
Vonnegut got that wrong (in a way) because he said there were both
pre-birth and post-death existences and if these lasted indefinitely, there
would hardly be any chance that Billy would see one second of his life on
Earth (or Tralfamadore (sp?)) ever again. Yet in the novel he was there
almost all the (subjective) time, a bit like Dr Who always turning up on
20th century Earth despite having an entire universe and infinite time to
wander in.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind


On 11/11/2013 4:29 PM, LizR wrote:
On 12 November 2013 13:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net 
wrote:


On 11/11/2013 3:39 PM, LizR wrote:

On 12 November 2013 09:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 11/11/2013 11:21 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

You find you every day, according to you, every day should not happen, 
only
being 10¹⁰⁰ is likely, it's just non-sense, 
your
life is not random sampled, yesterday happen before today and before 
tomorrow.
That doesn't make today less likely than tomorrow.


Sure, but it makes the interval (0,75) less likely than the interval 
(75, inf).

Unless you're Billy Pilgrim from  Slaughterhouse 5 this argument doesn't 
make
sense, beause you are forced to sample your days in ascending order.


But what does that have to do with the probabilities?  A sample is when I 
ask
myself, how probable is it that my age is what it is today.  I don't have 
to do this
everyday.  In fact I'm very unlikely to have done it before age 4.  So I 
don't see
why sequence is determinative.  ISTM is only implies that tomorrow will be 
less
likely than today (since I may not ask tomorrow; possibly because I'm dead).


Sequence is determinative because that's how the universe works. Tomorrow, and tomorrow, 
and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day, to the last syllable of 
recorded time. That's the second law doing its thing, and unless you've got very good 
reason to think otherwise, you shouldn't be surprised that it is. All we're saying is 
that you should be unsurprised to find yourself living your life in ascending order. You 
have to pass through your current age at some point, unless you die first, and you 
should expect to do so before you reach a greater age. If at your current age you ask 
how probable it is that you are your current age, the answer is 1. If you're quantum 
immortal then you will have the same probability every time you ask yourself that 
question into the indefinite future. You are always 100% likely to be your present age!



Suppose you're Benjamin Button.  For him would it be OK to say it's 
surprising I'm
only 75?


I don't know anything about Benjamin Button.


Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse.

So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from the fact you, 
and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150?


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind


On 11/11/2013 4:39 PM, LizR wrote:
Actually, if you were Billy Pilgrim, you would know immediately you fell into the 
chronosyncinastic infundibulum (sp?) whether you were quantum immortal or not, because 
the chances would be infinitesimal of ending up in the first N years of your life, where 
N is /any/ finite value. In fact Vonnegut got that wrong (in a way) because he said 
there were both pre-birth and post-death existences and if these lasted indefinitely, 
there would hardly be any chance that Billy would see one second of his life on Earth 
(or Tralfamadore (sp?)) ever again. Yet in the novel he was there almost all the 
(subjective) time, a bit like Dr Who always turning up on 20th century Earth despite 
having an entire universe and infinite time to wander in.


Do I have an infinite lifetime in which to ask, Why am I not older than 75?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 12 November 2013 14:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/11/2013 4:39 PM, LizR wrote:

 Actually, if you were Billy Pilgrim, you would know immediately you fell
 into the chronosyncinastic infundibulum (sp?) whether you were quantum
 immortal or not, because the chances would be infinitesimal of ending up in
 the first N years of your life, where N is *any* finite value. In fact
 Vonnegut got that wrong (in a way) because he said there were both
 pre-birth and post-death existences and if these lasted indefinitely, there
 would hardly be any chance that Billy would see one second of his life on
 Earth (or Tralfamadore (sp?)) ever again. Yet in the novel he was there
 almost all the (subjective) time, a bit like Dr Who always turning up on
 20th century Earth despite having an entire universe and infinite time to
 wander in.


 Do I have an infinite lifetime in which to ask, Why am I not older than
 75?


I don't know. Presumably you wouldn't ask yourself that once you were over
75. But the point is, you have to be less than 75 until you reach the age
of 75.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 12 November 2013 14:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/11/2013 4:29 PM, LizR wrote:

 On 12 November 2013 13:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

   On 11/11/2013 3:39 PM, LizR wrote:

 On 12 November 2013 09:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/11/2013 11:21 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

 You find you every day, according to you, every day should not happen,
 only being 10¹⁰⁰ is likely, it's just
 non-sense, your life is not random sampled, yesterday happen before today
 and before tomorrow. That doesn't make today less likely than tomorrow.


  Sure, but it makes the interval (0,75) less likely than the interval
 (75, inf).

  Unless you're Billy Pilgrim from  Slaughterhouse 5 this argument
 doesn't make sense, beause you are forced to sample your days in ascending
 order.


  But what does that have to do with the probabilities?  A sample is
 when I ask myself, how probable is it that my age is what it is today.  I
 don't have to do this everyday.  In fact I'm very unlikely to have done it
 before age 4.  So I don't see why sequence is determinative.  ISTM is only
 implies that tomorrow will be less likely than today (since I may not ask
 tomorrow; possibly because I'm dead).


  Sequence is determinative because that's how the universe works.
 Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to
 day, to the last syllable of recorded time. That's the second law doing its
 thing, and unless you've got very good reason to think otherwise, you
 shouldn't be surprised that it is. All we're saying is that you should be
 unsurprised to find yourself living your life in ascending order. You have
 to pass through your current age at some point, unless you die first, and
 you should expect to do so before you reach a greater age. If at your
 current age you ask how probable it is that you are your current age, the
 answer is 1. If you're quantum immortal then you will have the same
 probability every time you ask yourself that question into the indefinite
 future. You are always 100% likely to be your present age!


 Suppose you're Benjamin Button.  For him would it be OK to say it's
 surprising I'm only 75?


  I don't know anything about Benjamin Button.


 Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse.

 Oh, right, like the guy in Martin Amis' Time's Arrow (itself a rip off
from An Age by Brian Aldiss). Presumably according to QTI he's at the end
of an infinite future lifetime, or whatever? But since he's unphysical I
guess we can say what we like about him.


 So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from
 the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age
 150?


My normal inference is that everyone dies. Apparently the QTI throws doubt
on this by pointing out that we have only sampled an infinitesimal
proportion of the available branches of the multiverse, and that in another
infinitesimal portion there might be people who live forever (somehow).

What is your inference from the fact that everywhere you've ever travelled
has been on or near the surface of a congenial planet supplied with air,
water and all the necessities of life?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 11/11/2013 6:38 PM, LizR wrote:

Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse.

Oh, right, like the guy in Martin Amis' Time's Arrow (itself a rip off from An Age
by Brian Aldiss). Presumably according to QTI he's at the end of an infinite future
lifetime, or whatever? But since he's unphysical I guess we can say what we like about him.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was by F. Scott Fitzgerald (1922).

So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from
the fact
you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150?

My normal inference is that everyone dies. Apparently the QTI throws doubt on this by
pointing out that we have only sampled an infinitesimal proportion of the available
branches of the multiverse, and that in another infinitesimal portion there might be
people who live forever (somehow).

But doesn't QTI imply that everybody is immortal, as Jason infers. Did you read Divided
by Inifinity yet?

What is your inference from the fact that everywhere you've ever travelled has been on
or near the surface of a congenial planet supplied with air, water and all the
necessities of life?

That I'm the product of evolution on this planet.

Brent

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 12 November 2013 16:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/11/2013 6:38 PM, LizR wrote:


  Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse.

  Oh, right, like the guy in Martin Amis' Time's Arrow (itself a rip
 off from An Age by Brian Aldiss). Presumably according to QTI he's at the
 end of an infinite future lifetime, or whatever? But since he's unphysical
 I guess we can say what we like about him.


 The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was by F. Scott Fitzgerald (1922).


Oh well, he gets precedence, then. But in any case I don't see any
particular relevance, probably that's my fault...

  So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference
 from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching
 age 150?


  My normal inference is that everyone dies. Apparently the QTI throws
 doubt on this by pointing out that we have only sampled an infinitesimal
 proportion of the available branches of the multiverse, and that in another
 infinitesimal portion there might be people who live forever (somehow).

 But doesn't QTI imply that everybody is immortal, as Jason infers.  Did
 you read Divided by Inifinity yet?

 Yes it does, but only in infinitesimal slivers of the multiverse, which is
what I was trying to say in my roundabout way.

No I skimmed it, but I hope / think I get the point. Is there anything else
I should be taking from it apart from this is what quantum immortality
might look like, assuming a nearby gamma ray burst and so on ?

 What is your inference from the fact that everywhere you've ever travelled
 has been on or near the surface of a congenial planet supplied with air,
 water and all the necessities of life?

 That I'm the product of evolution on this planet.


Right, you're here in an extremely unlikely situation if you take random
samples from the universe. I was trying to draw a parallel here, if I can
just remember what it was...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind


On 11/11/2013 7:35 PM, LizR wrote:
On 12 November 2013 16:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net 
wrote:


On 11/11/2013 6:38 PM, LizR wrote:



Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse.

Oh, right, like the guy in Martin Amis' Time's Arrow (itself a rip off from 
An
Age by Brian Aldiss). Presumably according to QTI he's at the end of an 
infinite
future lifetime, or whatever? But since he's unphysical I guess we can say 
what we
like about him.


The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was by F. Scott Fitzgerald (1922).

Oh well, he gets precedence, then. But in any case I don't see any particular relevance, 
probably that's my fault...



So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference 
from the
fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 
150?


My normal inference is that everyone dies. Apparently the QTI throws doubt 
on this
by pointing out that we have only sampled an infinitesimal proportion of the
available branches of the multiverse, and that in another infinitesimal 
portion
there might be people who live forever (somehow).

But doesn't QTI imply that everybody is immortal, as Jason infers.  Did you 
read
Divided by Inifinity yet?

Yes it does, but only in infinitesimal slivers of the multiverse, which is what I was 
trying to say in my roundabout way.


No I skimmed it, but I hope / think I get the point. Is there anything else I should be 
taking from it apart from this is what quantum immortality might look like, assuming a 
nearby gamma ray burst and so on ?



What is your inference from the fact that everywhere you've ever travelled 
has been
on or near the surface of a congenial planet supplied with air, water and 
all the
necessities of life?

That I'm the product of evolution on this planet.


Right, you're here in an extremely unlikely situation if you take random samples from 
the universe. I was trying to draw a parallel here, if I can just remember what it was...


That you can't infer much from I'm X except that it's possible to be X.  To make 
probabilistic inferences you either need a lot of samples (other people) or you need 
somebody to hand you a likelihood function.


I think the problem with QTI is that QM doesn't guarantee another experience of any 
quality.  It may guarantee that something happens, but the experience may the experience 
of being a bunch of loosely related molecules.  Craig likes to talk about 'sense' which 
when pressed it attributes to everything.  Experience may be like that; everything has 
'experience', it's just not human experience and when you stop having human experience 
you're dead.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013-11-10 Thread Jason Resch

On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:37 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 10 November 2013 08:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/9/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 Tegmark thinks he will survive, if the gun works sufficiently well. if
 not he might degrade and eventually ... die. This makes no sense to me. It
 is annoying, but we can degrade a lot, yet we can't die (with just comp,
 or, ITSM, with just the quantum MWI). With comp, we can expect jump, and
 consciousness phase transition, though.


 Aside from not finding myself the oldest person on the planet, I see a
 problem with quantum immortality in that quantum mechanics is time-reverse
 invariant.  So I should be 'past immortal' also.  But as Mark Twain said, I
 do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions
 and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest
 inconvenience from it.  If we are what our brains do it is easy to see why
 we should live from past (low entropy) to future (higher entropy), be born
 and die.

 Leaving aside time reversibility (which I am myself rather hot on) for a
 moment, if you're quantum immortal you can only expect to *eventually*find 
 yourself the oldest person. Give it time. You have to go through the
 bit beforehand beforehand...


Let's say the average life expectancy is a not infinite, but some very
large number, like a google plex years.  If you were to draw a ball at
random from an urn that had a googleplex balls in it, each with its unique
number inscribed on it, would you be surprised if the number was less than
100?

That is found to be less than 100 is surprising to a lot of people who
consider quantum immortality, but it shouldn't be for a few reasons.  One's
statistical measure decreases over time.  This is easiest to see in the
quantum suicide experiment, where each pull of the trigger cuts one's
measure in half.  Imagine someone who did this every day of their life,
their measure over time would be an infinite serious with a finite (not
infinite) sum.  Just like 3.33 is a sum of an infinite number of
numbers 3 + 0.3 + 0.003 ... nonetheless, it is still less than 4.  If one's
measure diminishes geometrically as they live to ever increasingly absurd
lifetimes 200 years, 300 years, 400 years, etc., then the same effect is
the result, and we should not be surprised at drawing a number less than
100.

The other reason we should not be surprised is that we have no idea how old
we really are.  Let's say heaven is real and all people live eternally.
 Then probabilistically this moment you are experiencing now is infinitely
more likely to be a moment of perfect recall of this moment of life on
earth (from heaven) rather than your life as the first time you lived it.
 In other words, if heaven exists, then you are almost surely already in
it.  Your age is some infinite number, and you have recalled this moment an
infinite number of times.

Quantum immortality guarantees you will always have a next experience, but
it does not guarantee what memories you will have access to in those next
experiences.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind


On 11/9/2013 11:37 PM, LizR wrote:
On 10 November 2013 08:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net 
wrote:


On 11/9/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Tegmark thinks he will survive, if the gun works sufficiently well. if not 
he might
degrade and eventually ... die. This makes no sense to me. It is annoying, 
but we
can degrade a lot, yet we can't die (with just comp, or, ITSM, with just the
quantum MWI). With comp, we can expect jump, and consciousness phase 
transition,
though. 


Aside from not finding myself the oldest person on the planet, I see a 
problem with
quantum immortality in that quantum mechanics is time-reverse invariant.  
So I
should be 'past immortal' also.  But as Mark Twain said, I do not fear 
death, in
view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years 
before I
was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.  If we 
are what
our brains do it is easy to see why we should live from past (low entropy) 
to future
(higher entropy), be born and die.

Leaving aside time reversibility (which I am myself rather hot on) for a moment, if 
you're quantum immortal you can only expect to /eventually/ find yourself the oldest 
person. Give it time. You have to go through the bit beforehand beforehand...


True, but finding yourself in the first 1/N of your life when N=inf is highly 
unlikely.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind


On 11/10/2013 9:25 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:37 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

On 10 November 2013 08:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 11/9/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Tegmark thinks he will survive, if the gun works sufficiently well. if 
not he
might degrade and eventually ... die. This makes no sense to me. It is
annoying, but we can degrade a lot, yet we can't die (with just comp, 
or, ITSM,
with just the quantum MWI). With comp, we can expect jump, and 
consciousness
phase transition, though. 


Aside from not finding myself the oldest person on the planet, I see a 
problem
with quantum immortality in that quantum mechanics is time-reverse invariant. 
So I should be 'past immortal' also.  But as Mark Twain said, I do not fear

death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and 
billions of
years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest 
inconvenience from
it.  If we are what our brains do it is easy to see why we should live 
from
past (low entropy) to future (higher entropy), be born and die.

Leaving aside time reversibility (which I am myself rather hot on) for a 
moment, if
you're quantum immortal you can only expect to /eventually/ find yourself 
the oldest
person. Give it time. You have to go through the bit beforehand 
beforehand...


Let's say the average life expectancy is a not infinite, but some very large number, 
like a google plex years.  If you were to draw a ball at random from an urn that had a 
googleplex balls in it, each with its unique number inscribed on it, would you be 
surprised if the number was less than 100?


That is found to be less than 100 is surprising to a lot of people who consider quantum 
immortality, but it shouldn't be for a few reasons.  One's statistical measure decreases 
over time.  This is easiest to see in the quantum suicide experiment, where each pull of 
the trigger cuts one's measure in half.  Imagine someone who did this every day of their 
life, their measure over time would be an infinite serious with a finite (not infinite) 
sum.  Just like 3.33 is a sum of an infinite number of numbers 3 + 0.3 + 0.003 ... 
nonetheless, it is still less than 4.  If one's measure diminishes geometrically as they 
live to ever increasingly absurd lifetimes 200 years, 300 years, 400 years, etc., then 
the same effect is the result, and we should not be surprised at drawing a number less 
than 100.


So when your measure becomes less than one bit or too small to support your experience - 
you're dead.




The other reason we should not be surprised is that we have no idea how old we really 
are.  Let's say heaven is real and all people live eternally.  Then probabilistically 
this moment you are experiencing now is infinitely more likely to be a moment of perfect 
recall of this moment of life on earth (from heaven) rather than your life as the first 
time you lived it.  In other words, if heaven exists, then you are almost surely already 
in it.  Your age is some infinite number, and you have recalled this moment an infinite 
number of times.


Nietzsche's eternal return.  But is it heaven, or is it hell?

Brent
Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the
dream that their souls are separate and self-existing
entities. Their heart still clings to Self. They are anxious
about heaven and they seek the pleasure of Self in heaven.
Thus they cannot see the bliss of righteousness of the
immortality of truth.' Selfish ideas appear in man's mind
due to his conception of Self and craving for existence.
  --- Siddhartha Gautama

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013-11-10 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2013/11/10 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 11/9/2013 11:37 PM, LizR wrote:

  On 10 November 2013 08:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/9/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 Tegmark thinks he will survive, if the gun works sufficiently well. if
 not he might degrade and eventually ... die. This makes no sense to me. It
 is annoying, but we can degrade a lot, yet we can't die (with just comp,
 or, ITSM, with just the quantum MWI). With comp, we can expect jump, and
 consciousness phase transition, though.


  Aside from not finding myself the oldest person on the planet, I see a
 problem with quantum immortality in that quantum mechanics is time-reverse
 invariant.  So I should be 'past immortal' also.  But as Mark Twain said, I
 do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions
 and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest
 inconvenience from it.  If we are what our brains do it is easy to see why
 we should live from past (low entropy) to future (higher entropy), be born
 and die.

  Leaving aside time reversibility (which I am myself rather hot on) for
 a moment, if you're quantum immortal you can only expect to *eventually*find 
 yourself the oldest person. Give it time. You have to go through the
 bit beforehand beforehand...


 True, but finding yourself in the first 1/N of your life when N=inf is
 highly unlikely.


Sure, but the thing is that *you have to*, and asking such question at that
stage is very likely... you can't be 10⁵ years old before having been 1
year old... it's simply nonsense.

Quentin


 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

On 11/10/2013 3:54 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

2013/11/10 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net

On 11/9/2013 11:37 PM, LizR wrote:

On 10 November 2013 08:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 11/9/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Tegmark thinks he will survive, if the gun works sufficiently well. if
not he
might degrade and eventually ... die. This makes no sense to me. It is
annoying, but we can degrade a lot, yet we can't die (with just comp,
or,
ITSM, with just the quantum MWI). With comp, we can expect jump, and
consciousness phase transition, though.

Aside from not finding myself the oldest person on the planet, I see a
problem
with quantum immortality in that quantum mechanics is time-reverse invariant.
So I should be 'past immortal' also. But as Mark Twain said, I do not fear

death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and
billions of
years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest
inconvenience from
it. If we are what our brains do it is easy to see why we should live
from
past (low entropy) to future (higher entropy), be born and die.

Leaving aside time reversibility (which I am myself rather hot on) for a
moment, if
you're quantum immortal you can only expect to /eventually/ find yourself
the
oldest person. Give it time. You have to go through the bit beforehand
beforehand...

True, but finding yourself in the first 1/N of your life when N=inf is
highly unlikely.

Sure, but the thing is that *you have to*, and asking such question at that stage is
very likely... you can't be 10⁵ years old before having been 1 year old... it's simply
nonsense.

So you're falling back on the all-purpose 'everything' answer; whatever you observe is one
of everything and that why everything is consistent with it - like why I'm not a Chinaman?

Brent

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013-11-10 Thread LizR

On 11 November 2013 13:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/10/2013 3:54 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:


  Sure, but the thing is that *you have to*, and asking such question at
 that stage is very likely... you can't be 10⁵ years old before having been
 1 year old... it's simply nonsense.


 So you're falling back on the all-purpose 'everything' answer; whatever
 you observe is one of everything and that why everything is consistent with
 it - like why I'm not a Chinaman?

 There isn't any falling back here that I can see. It seems quite
reasonable to say you have to pass through your birthdays in ascending
order. I can't see why that is problematic / contraversial?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

2013-11-10 Thread Jason Resch

On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:48 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/10/2013 9:25 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




 On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:37 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

   On 10 November 2013 08:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/9/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 Tegmark thinks he will survive, if the gun works sufficiently well. if
 not he might degrade and eventually ... die. This makes no sense to me. It
 is annoying, but we can degrade a lot, yet we can't die (with just comp,
 or, ITSM, with just the quantum MWI). With comp, we can expect jump, and
 consciousness phase transition, though.


  Aside from not finding myself the oldest person on the planet, I see a
 problem with quantum immortality in that quantum mechanics is time-reverse
 invariant.  So I should be 'past immortal' also.  But as Mark Twain said, I
 do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions
 and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest
 inconvenience from it.  If we are what our brains do it is easy to see why
 we should live from past (low entropy) to future (higher entropy), be born
 and die.

   Leaving aside time reversibility (which I am myself rather hot on)
 for a moment, if you're quantum immortal you can only expect to
 *eventually* find yourself the oldest person. Give it time. You have to
 go through the bit beforehand beforehand...


  Let's say the average life expectancy is a not infinite, but some very
 large number, like a google plex years.  If you were to draw a ball at
 random from an urn that had a googleplex balls in it, each with its unique
 number inscribed on it, would you be surprised if the number was less than
 100?

  That is found to be less than 100 is surprising to a lot of people who
 consider quantum immortality, but it shouldn't be for a few reasons.  One's
 statistical measure decreases over time.  This is easiest to see in the
 quantum suicide experiment, where each pull of the trigger cuts one's
 measure in half.  Imagine someone who did this every day of their life,
 their measure over time would be an infinite serious with a finite (not
 infinite) sum.  Just like 3.33 is a sum of an infinite number of
 numbers 3 + 0.3 + 0.003 ... nonetheless, it is still less than 4.  If one's
 measure diminishes geometrically as they live to ever increasingly absurd
 lifetimes 200 years, 300 years, 400 years, etc., then the same effect is
 the result, and we should not be surprised at drawing a number less than
 100.


 So when your measure becomes less than one bit or too small to support
 your experience - you're dead.



When it becomes small enough, then more probable extensions become more
likely.  I don't know if it can ever become zero, that would require some
experience which by its definition cannot have a following experience.
Even witnessing an atom bomb going off 1000 feet from you does not
necessarily count, because even that experience could continue as seen from
someone awaking from what turned out to be a simulation.





  The other reason we should not be surprised is that we have no idea how
 old we really are.  Let's say heaven is real and all people live eternally.
  Then probabilistically this moment you are experiencing now is infinitely
 more likely to be a moment of perfect recall of this moment of life on
 earth (from heaven) rather than your life as the first time you lived it.
  In other words, if heaven exists, then you are almost surely already in
 it.  Your age is some infinite number, and you have recalled this moment an
 infinite number of times.


 Nietzsche's eternal return.


Although not quite, for there may still be novel experience in such an
eternal life besides those that involve recall of the first life.  But
then, who is to say that this is the first or only life of that eternal
being?



 But is it heaven, or is it hell?


Good question.

Jason




 Brent
 Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the
 dream that their souls are separate and self-existing
 entities. Their heart still clings to Self. They are anxious
 about heaven and they seek the pleasure of Self in heaven.
 Thus they cannot see the bliss of righteousness of the
 immortality of truth.' Selfish ideas appear in man's mind
 due to his conception of Self and craving for existence.
   --- Siddhartha Gautama



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind