I should have said "a countable set of countable histories".
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 15:05:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality (was Re: Quantum Suicide)
Bruno,
So why is it that from the 3rd person point of view everyone dies?
Also along the lines of the "Let There Be Something" thread, isn't it
also true that a finite set of finite histories, or even a countable
set of infinite histories, is of measure zero in the continuum? If this
is the type of selection that is being made from The Multiverse (whose
measure >= measure(continuum)) to the "initial" multiverse(s) of your
and others' theories, then by the same argument that you use to show
that the probability of dying is zero, doesn't this imply that the
probability of having such an "initial" multiverse is zero?
I may be in over my head, but if my "Let There Be Something" inquiry is
correct, then we're all in over our head.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Everything-List List <everything-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 13:27:27 +0100
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality (was Re: Quantum Suicide)
Le 28-oct.-05, à 17:54, GottferDamnt a écrit (for-list):
Hi,
I would like talk about this quote from an old topic:
This is a rather shocking conclusion. We are conscious here and
now because our (computational state) belongs to aleph_1 (or
2^aleph_0 for those who doesn't want to rely on Cantor's continuum
hypothesis) infinite computational histories !
Remember Brice deWitt shock when he realised that at each instant
he is multiplied by 10^100. Now it seems that we are multiplied
by the continuum (!)
(Moreover this is coherent with the Z modal logics).
So it seems you are completely right Bob (at least formally), and
Russell Standish is also right when he said :"Therefore QTI and the
existence of cul-de-sac branches are a mutual contradiction".
The pruning of "dead-end" corresponds to the adding of consistency
(the modal diamond <>) in the modal definition of observation.
Bruno
What about these cul-de-sac branches? Is It definitely that
"dead-end"
branches can exist with the quantum theory of immortality (for
example,
a state of consciousness which can't be follow)?
And how comp' Bruno theory manage these cul-de-sac branches?
I believe that the quantum theory does not allow cul-de-sac branches.
I also believe that the Godel-Lob theory of self-reference not only
allow cul-de-sac branches, but it imposes them everywhere: from all
alive states you can reach a dead end.
The Universal Dovetailer Argument shows that the physics (which has no
dead ends) should be given by the self-reference logics (with reachable
dead end everywhere).
I have been stuck in that contradiction a very long time ...
... until I realized the absolute necessity of distinguishing the first
and third person point of views. That necessity is implied itself by
the incompleteness phenomena, but that is technical (ask me on the
everything-list if interested).
The intuitive point here is that you cannot have a first person point
of view on your own death: 1-death is not an event, and should be kept
out of the domain of verification of probabilistic statements. Another
intuition: the finite histories are of measure null among the
collection of all histories (the continuum).
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
