Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
Hi Bruno, Well, even if you can derive the laws of physics as we know them (in some approximation), you still can't do an experiment to prove that quantum suicide works. It can only be proven to the experimentor himself. This means that the absolute measure cannot be ruled out experimentally. - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 01:25 PM Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow Le 15-déc.-05, à 03:04, Saibal Mitra a écrit : To me it seems that the notion of ''successor'' has to break down at cases where the observer can die. The Tookies that are the most similar to the Tookie who got executed are the ones who got clemency. There is no objective reason why these Tookies should be excluded as ''successors''. They miss the part of their memories about things that happened after clemency was denied. Instead of those memories they have other memories. We forget things all the time. Sometimes we remember things that didn't really happen. So, we allow for information loss anyway. My point is then that we should forget about all of the information contained in the OM and just sample from the entire set of OMs. The notion of a ''successor'' is not a fundamental notion at all. You can define it any way you like. ? It will not lead to any conflict with any experiments you can think of. ? Counterexamples will appear if I succeed to explain more of the conversation with the lobian machines. But just with the Kripke semantics we have a base to doubt what you are saying here. Indeed, it is the relation of accessibility between OMs which determine completely the invariant laws pertaining in all OMs. For example, if the multiverse is reflexive the Bp - p is true in all OMs (that is, Bp - p is invariant for any walk in the multiverse). If the mutliverse is terminal of papaioannou-like) then Dt - ~BDt is a law. In Kripke structure the accessibility relation determined the invariant laws. later, the modal logic is given by the machine interview, and from that, we will determine the structure of the multiverse, including the observable one. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
Saibal Mitra writes: To me it seems that the notion of ''successor'' has to break down at cases where the observer can die. The Tookies that are the most similar to the Tookie who got executed are the ones who got clemency. There is no objective reason why these Tookies should be excluded as ''successors''. They miss the part of their memories about things that happened after clemency was denied. Instead of those memories they have other memories. We forget things all the time. Sometimes we remember things that didn't really happen. So, we allow for information loss anyway. My point is then that we should forget about all of the information contained in the OM and just sample from the entire set of OMs. The notion of a ''successor'' is not a fundamental notion at all. You can define it any way you like. It will not lead to any conflict with any experiments you can think of. You are right about death with a (not completely up to date) backup of your mind being equivalent to memory loss, and you are right about the notion of a successor not being fundamental to physics. Nevertheless, we can still ask questions *given* our innate theory of personal identity, which has evolved to be very powerful and difficult to change, and very consistent from person to person. What this means is that if I were facing imminent execution, try as I might, I would not get much consolation from the belief that other versions of me in the multiverse will not be killed. In fact, I don't really care what happens to versions of me in parallel branches. What I care about is what is happening to me now, and what will happen to me in the future. When I consider my immediate future, I consider and worry about the fate of all those versions of me who remember almost everything about me up to and including the present moment, which for them will be a moment ago. Once the future comes and I find myself to be one of the aforementioned versions, I immediately lose interest in all the other parallel versions, because they are no longer potentially me. Using the above structure, at the point where I am just about to have the lethal injection, what I hope for is that there will be at least one version of me in the multiverse who has just experienced having the injection a moment ago, but has somehow survived. In other words, if one or more such versions exist anywhere in the multiverse, then this is necessary and sufficient for me to survive my execution. It may be easy to find logical flaws in the above credo, but I maintain that it is so deeply ingrained in each of us that it would be very difficult to overcome, except perhaps on the intellectual level. One could imagine other beliefs about personal identity that might have evolved if there were the appropriate selection pressure; for example, identifying as part of a group or swarm organism. The point is, our belief is not scientifically or philosophically right; it is just our belief. Stathis Papaioannou _ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
Hi Saibal, Well, even if you can derive the laws of physics as we know them (in some approximation), you still can't do an experiment to prove that quantum suicide works. I think you are completely right. It is even my main motivation for calling theology the modal logic G* (which contains all the propositional truth about the machine including those the machines cannot prove). It can only be proven to the experimentor himself. Actually I am not even sure of that, although the experimentor can in a 1-person view, believes he got evidences (but no proof). Actually I have no proof that I am alive. This means that the absolute measure cannot be ruled out experimentally. OK. But how would you verify the absolute measure. Do you think you can derive the physical laws from it (without any physicalist prior, and by being coherent with the 1-3 distinction)? See you tomorrow, Bruno - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 01:25 PM Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow Le 15-déc.-05, à 03:04, Saibal Mitra a écrit : To me it seems that the notion of ''successor'' has to break down at cases where the observer can die. The Tookies that are the most similar to the Tookie who got executed are the ones who got clemency. There is no objective reason why these Tookies should be excluded as ''successors''. They miss the part of their memories about things that happened after clemency was denied. Instead of those memories they have other memories. We forget things all the time. Sometimes we remember things that didn't really happen. So, we allow for information loss anyway. My point is then that we should forget about all of the information contained in the OM and just sample from the entire set of OMs. The notion of a ''successor'' is not a fundamental notion at all. You can define it any way you like. ? It will not lead to any conflict with any experiments you can think of. ? Counterexamples will appear if I succeed to explain more of the conversation with the lobian machines. But just with the Kripke semantics we have a base to doubt what you are saying here. Indeed, it is the relation of accessibility between OMs which determine completely the invariant laws pertaining in all OMs. For example, if the multiverse is reflexive the Bp - p is true in all OMs (that is, Bp - p is invariant for any walk in the multiverse). If the mutliverse is terminal of papaioannou-like) then Dt - ~BDt is a law. In Kripke structure the accessibility relation determined the invariant laws. later, the modal logic is given by the machine interview, and from that, we will determine the structure of the multiverse, including the observable one. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
Le 14-déc.-05, à 01:34, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : In the multiverse, only other people end up in dead ends. Although from a third person perspective every entity in the multiverse could be said to exist only transiently because at every point of an entity's history we can say that there sprouts a dead end branch of zero extent, from a first person perspective, these branches cannot by definition ever be experienced. If the laws of physics are contingent on the continuation of consciousness, it is very well possible that a very large majority of branches are very short and dead ends. In other words every nanoseconds we suffer a thousand deaths through events which are perceived to be unlikely due to the apparent stability of the physical laws, events such as proton decay, beta capture, nuclear fusion due to nucleus tunneling, etc... Bruno Marchal wrote: I know you have solved the only if part of following exercise: (W, R) is reflexive iff (W,R) respects Bp - p. I will come back on the if part later. Have you done this: showing that (W,R) is a Papaioannou multiverse iff(W,R) respects Dt - D(Bf). Note that this question is a little bit academical. I have already explain how I will choose the modal logics. Actually I will not choose them, I will extract them from a conversation with the machine (and its guardian angel). This will leave no choice. It will happen that the formula Dt - D(Bf) will appear in the discourse machine; indeed perhaps some of you know already that this is just the second incompleteness of Godel, once you interpret Bp by the machine proves p, coded in some language the machine can use. George
Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
Le Vendredi 16 Décembre 2005 02:18, vous avez écrit : This is true, but you can only experience being one person at a time. In fact I'd say I can only experience being me ;) If I experienced being another person I wouldn't be I. When I contemplate what may happen to me tomorrow, I have to consider all the future versions of me in the multiverse as having equal right to consider themselves me. So if half the versions of me tomorrow are expected to suffer, I am worried, because I might be one of those who suffers. In fact you might not be, It's sure *you* will. But when tomorrow comes and I am not suffering, I am relieved - even though those who are suffering have as much right to consider themselves the continuation of yesterday's version of me as I do. Our psychology creates an asymmetry between the present and the future when it comes to personal identity. Some on this list (eg. Lee Corbin) have argued that this is irrational: copies that are me in the future should also be considered me in the present and past. I agree with this statement. However, our psychological makeup is as it is: our future encompasses many possibilities, but our present and past is fixed and single. This is true, but if you encompass a multiverse/everything view then you cannot ask why am I not one of those that or that experience... Why am I still in a rationnal/induction working world ? You're not because if you were, you wouldn't ask this in the first place. Stathis Papaioannou Regards, Quentin Anciaux
