Re: An Equivalence Principle
Youness, hmmm I am not sure Perhaps a duality, or a Galois connection of some sort. I'm afraid that an *equivalence* would show up only in the case where I am the world or comp is false or in the case where the comp level of substitution is infinitely low, roughly speaking. In that case ASSA and RSSA are plausibly equivalent, and the indexical comp (what I am used to call comp and which asserts that I am a machine) is then plausibly equivalent with Schmiduhuberian form of comp (the universe is a machine). About Bostrom's unification/duplication, I think that from the first person point of view we can have unification when the two identical brains are running identically during a period of time dT, although duplication---during that very period of time dT--- has still to be considered when some histories, going through the identical states during dT, differentiate later. This is what I like to sum up by Y = II, which means that a differentation/bifurcation change the measure on states in the logical past, a little like if the first amoeba did get a high measure in the past thanks to her many descendants today. This entails a form of anthropic teleology about which I lack the tools for making things more precise. I think you could make your point clearer by trying to be more precise on what you consider to be a world and a (first person) observer moment perhaps. Modal logic could help you here I guess. Bruno Youness Ayaita wrote, the 07 Apr 2008: An Equivalence Principle Youness Ayaita Mon, 07 Apr 2008 07:51:31 -0700 By this contribution to the Everything list I want to argue that there is a fundamental equivalence between the first person and the third person viewpoint: Under few assumptions I show that it doesn't matter for our reasoning whether we understand the Everything ensemble as the ensemble of all worlds (a third person viewpoint) or as the ensemble of all observer moments (a first person viewpoint). I think that this result is even more substantial than the assumptions from which it can be deduced. Thus, I further suggest to reverse my argument considering the last statement as a principle, the equivalence principle. Let me first present and explain the two viewpoints: 1. The ensemble of worlds This approach starts from the ontological basis of all worlds (or descriptions thereof). I am not precise to what exactly I refer by saying worlds and descriptions for I don't want to lose wider applicability of my arguments by restricting myself to specific theories of the Everything ensemble. But admittedly, I mainly think of theories similar to Russell's ideas. However, the crucial property of theories starting from the ensemble of worlds consists in their third person viewpoint. The ontological basis does not explicitly refer to observers nor to observer moments. Observers are regarded as being self-aware substructures of the worlds they inhabit. Coming from the sciences, this approach is very natural. In the sciences, we are used to the idea of a physical reality independent of us humans. We are studying phenomena happening in our universe. Thus, when we invent a theory of the Everything ensemble, we are naturally driven to the idea that not only our universe, but a multiverse consisting of all possible worlds exists. We already know how observers come into the scene: As an emergent property, a huge number of the fundamental building blocks can constitute an observer. In order to understand this, one has to introduce a semantic language which describes the emergent phenomenon. The description of the world itself is expressed in the syntactic language (I adopt Russell's nomenclature). The link between between these two languages is some kind of neurological theory explaining how the states of the fundamental building blocks (more precise: the description of the world) lead to mental states (or the emergence of an observer). Though, finding such a neurological theory is a very difficult task. In this world, we are facing the so-called hard problem of consciousness. And even if neurologists, psychologists and philosophers will finally succeed to find an adequate theory in this world, it is not clear whether we can apply the theory to other worlds. So, to conclude, this approach has the great advantage of being very close to the structure of the physical worlds. The explanation of observers and observer moments seems to be possible, but surely is very complicated and difficult. 2. The ensemble of observer moments When I first thought of the Everything ensemble, I did not come from the sciences, but from philosophy. I judged that the concept of absolute existence was a dubious extension of the concepts of subjective accessibility and perceptibility. So, it was natural for me to start from the ensemble of observer moments, a first person viewpoint. The class of all observer moments constitutes the ontological basis of this second approach. Later, I realized that
Quantum Immortality = no second law
In the description of the quantum immortality gedanken experiment, a physicist rigs an automatic rifle to a geiger counter to fire into him upon the detection of an atomic decay event from a bit of radioactive material. If the many worlds hypothesis is true, the self-awareness of the physicist will continue to find himself alive after any length of time in front of his gun, since there exist parallel worlds where the decay does not occur. On a microscopic scale this is analogous to the observing a reality in which the second law of thermodynamics does not hold. for example, since there is a non-zero probability that molecular interactions will result in a decrease in entropy in a particular sealed volume under observation, there exist histories in which this must be observed. This is never observed. Therefore the MWI is shown to be false. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law
Citeren nichomachus [EMAIL PROTECTED]: In the description of the quantum immortality gedanken experiment, a physicist rigs an automatic rifle to a geiger counter to fire into him upon the detection of an atomic decay event from a bit of radioactive material. If the many worlds hypothesis is true, the self-awareness of the physicist will continue to find himself alive after any length of time in front of his gun, since there exist parallel worlds where the decay does not occur. This has never been rigorously proven. I can give you some argumetns why the MWI does not imply Quantum Immortality. On a microscopic scale this is analogous to the observing a reality in which the second law of thermodynamics does not hold. for example, since there is a non-zero probability that molecular interactions will result in a decrease in entropy in a particular sealed volume under observation, there exist histories in which this must be observed. This is never observed. Therefore the MWI is shown to be false. This is also not a correct conclusion (if you replace MWI by quantum immortality). --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law
Citeren nichomachus [EMAIL PROTECTED]: In the description of the quantum immortality gedanken experiment, a physicist rigs an automatic rifle to a geiger counter to fire into him upon the detection of an atomic decay event from a bit of radioactive material. If the many worlds hypothesis is true, the self-awareness of the physicist will continue to find himself alive after any length of time in front of his gun, since there exist parallel worlds where the decay does not occur. This has never been rigorously proven. I can give you some argumetns why the MWI does not imply Quantum Immortality. On a microscopic scale this is analogous to the observing a reality in which the second law of thermodynamics does not hold. for example, since there is a non-zero probability that molecular interactions will result in a decrease in entropy in a particular sealed volume under observation, there exist histories in which this must be observed. This is never observed. Therefore the MWI is shown to be false. This is also not a correct conclusion (if you replace MWI by quantum immortality). --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law
No, it just means no-one's put enough stress on the 2nd Law yet :) Besides, it's not so much a law as a guideline. Well, a strong statistical tendency On 15/04/2008, nichomachus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the description of the quantum immortality gedanken experiment, a physicist rigs an automatic rifle to a geiger counter to fire into him upon the detection of an atomic decay event from a bit of radioactive material. If the many worlds hypothesis is true, the self-awareness of the physicist will continue to find himself alive after any length of time in front of his gun, since there exist parallel worlds where the decay does not occur. On a microscopic scale this is analogous to the observing a reality in which the second law of thermodynamics does not hold. for example, since there is a non-zero probability that molecular interactions will result in a decrease in entropy in a particular sealed volume under observation, there exist histories in which this must be observed. This is never observed. Therefore the MWI is shown to be false. -- They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist- Last words of Gen. John Sedgwick, spoken as he looked out over the parapet at enemy lines during the Battle of Spotsylvania in 1864. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law
On 15/04/2008, Michael Rosefield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, it just means no-one's put enough stress on the 2nd Law yet :) Besides, it's not so much a law as a guideline. Well, a strong statistical tendency As Michael pointed out, the 2nd law is a statistical law, which says that a decrease in entropy is unlikely, not impossible.. QTI predicts that you will survive the most probable way possible. This means it is unlikely that you will find yourself in a world where you choose to attempt quantum suicide experiments in the first place, but if you do the least improbable way of surviving is very improbable in absolute terms, but not impossible. -- Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law
Further to this, to say that the 2nd law is falsified, we'd have to have circumstances where the less likely outcome ocurred more frequently than the more often. (ie entropy decreases more often than it increases). But this begs the question of what we mean by likelihood of outcome, if not related to frequency of occurrence. In any case, QTI does not change the observed outcome of likely versus unlikely events, it just changes the set of possible outcome on which to apply the second law. On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:30:05AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 15/04/2008, Michael Rosefield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, it just means no-one's put enough stress on the 2nd Law yet :) Besides, it's not so much a law as a guideline. Well, a strong statistical tendency As Michael pointed out, the 2nd law is a statistical law, which says that a decrease in entropy is unlikely, not impossible.. QTI predicts that you will survive the most probable way possible. This means it is unlikely that you will find yourself in a world where you choose to attempt quantum suicide experiments in the first place, but if you do the least improbable way of surviving is very improbable in absolute terms, but not impossible. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law
On Apr 14, 9:21 pm, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Further to this, to say that the 2nd law is falsified, we'd have to have circumstances where the less likely outcome ocurred more frequently than the more often. (ie entropy decreases more often than it increases). But this begs the question of what we mean by likelihood of outcome, if not related to frequency of occurrence. Hi, Russell, Surely the framework of the Many Worlds interpretation would say that the likelyhood of measuring a quantum observable in state A rather than B reflects the number of histories in which the observable is measured as being in state A divided by number of histories in which either is seen. Molecules in a gas chamber may not be the best example, as I am personally unclear as to whether the macroscopic behavior of the aggregate is reduceable to probabilistic quantum events. But the point remains that it is impossible to adhere to the MWI without also affirming not only the existence of histories in which unlikely events happen, but also ones in which *only* unlikely events happen. This includes universes where the cat never dies, uranium never decays, and (perhaps) the second law does not hold. Is it right to think that this is unproblematic? Or perhaps we should regard the Many Worlds formalism as merely an instrumentalistic interpretation, similar to how Bohr and Heisenberg regarded their Copenhagen interpretation, rather than granting full ontological significance to alternate possible histories. In any case, QTI does not change the observed outcome of likely versus unlikely events, it just changes the set of possible outcome on which to apply the second law. What does QTI stand for? So our suicidal physicist would have enabled himself to observe the extremely scenario of seeing radioactive elements never decay, by killing himself in all histories where decay ocurred and thereby selecting only the ones where it did not take place to continue his awareness in.Of course, those branches of his identity would still have observed the same outcomes even if the gun was unloaded, so he doesn't really have to kill himself in nearly all universes in order to get to see it. But if I accept the above as true, then I must also accept that there are histories that have been experienced in which no atom of an unstable element has decayed since Jan. 1, 1900. (or any date you prefer) When Thomas Young performed his double slit experiment, were there any versions of himself that did not observe an interference pattern? Why not? I appreciate the replies as I am more questions than answers at this point on these topics. On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:30:05AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 15/04/2008, Michael Rosefield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, it just means no-one's put enough stress on the 2nd Law yet :) Besides, it's not so much a law as a guideline. Well, a strong statistical tendency As Michael pointed out, the 2nd law is a statistical law, which says that a decrease in entropy is unlikely, not impossible.. QTI predicts that you will survive the most probable way possible. This means it is unlikely that you will find yourself in a world where you choose to attempt quantum suicide experiments in the first place, but if you do the least improbable way of surviving is very improbable in absolute terms, but not impossible. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- ---- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ----- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
