On 26 March 2014 12:55, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 26 March 2014 14:50, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 26 March 2014 12:45, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: >> >>> On 3/25/2014 6:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 26 March 2014 12:15, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> An infinite universe (Tegmark type 1) implies that our >>>>> consciousness flits about from one copy of us to another and that as a >>>>> consequence we are immortal, so it does affect us even if there is no >>>>> physical communication between its distant parts. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That seems to imply that one's consciousness is unique and moves >>>> around like a soul. >>>> >>> >>> There's no dodgy metaphysical mechanism involved. If there are >>> multiple physical copies of you, and each copy has a similar consciousness >>> to you, then you can't know which copy is currently generating your >>> consciousness. >>> >>> >>>> I think the idea is that the "stream of consciousness" is unified so >>>> long as all the copies are being realized identically, in fact they are not >>>> "multiple" per Leibniz's identity of indiscernibles. When there is some >>>> quantum event amplified enough to make a difference in the stream of >>>> consciousness then the stream divides and there are two (or more) streams. >>>> >>> >>> An implication of this is that if one of the streams terminates your >>> consciousness will continue in the other. >>> >>> >>> But it will, at best be *similar* to the deceased "you", just as I am >>> quite different from Brent Meeker of 50yrs ago. And there is no quarantee >>> that some stream will continue. >>> >> >> Similar is good enough. There is a guarantee that some branch will >> continue if everything that can happen does happen. >> >> Surely in an infinite universe, and assuming the identity of quantum > states, you don't need similarity - you will get a quantum state that is a > follow-on from your previous one, but in which you continue to be alive... > > Of course this depends on what it means for quantum states to follow on > from other ones. But our brains already seem to "know" what that means, in > that we feel we're the same person we were this morning, and so we feel > continuity of "similar enough" quantum states. Unless QM is wrong about the > nature of quantum states, we will feel continuity if the "follow on" state > is actually 10 ^ 10 ^ 100 light years away (or 10 ^ 10 ^ 100 years away) > from the preceeding state. >
I agree but I don't think you need to refer to QM at all. The conclusion would still follow in a classical infinite universe. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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/d/optout.
