On 3/26/2014 2:57 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



2014-03-26 7:13 GMT+01:00 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net 
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>:

    On 3/25/2014 9:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:


    On 26 Mar 2014, at 1:56 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
    <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    On 3/25/2014 6:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:



    On 26 March 2014 12:55, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com <mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

        On 26 March 2014 14:50, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com
        <mailto:stath...@gmail.com>> wrote:

            On 26 March 2014 12:45, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
            <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

                On 3/25/2014 6:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

                On 26 March 2014 12:15, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
                <mailto: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.

    Probably not since classical physics is based on real numbers (and so is 
quantum
    mechanics for that matter).  Of course you could still fall back on "similar
    enough". But in that case you will, as you are dying, pass into a state of
    consciousness (i.e. none) that is "similar enough" to a fetus (of some 
animal) or
    maybe a cabbage.

    You don't need an *exact* copy, just a good enough copy. If an exact copy 
were
    needed, either at the quantum level or to an infinite number of decimal 
places,
    then we could not survive from one moment to the next, since in a very 
small period
    there are quite gross physical changes in our bodies.


    My point exactly - We DON'T survive moment to moment


Maybe you don't, but I surely do... saying consciousness or your identity is an illusion is just playing with words.

Yes, I agree. "Survive" isn't well defined at the quantum level. The same kind of reasoning that leads people to say we're immortal, also implies we're always dying.

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/d/optout.

Reply via email to