Re: QTI ---> Expanding brains
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 08:25:56PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: > > Does that mean that if I don't remember it, it didn't happen? > No it means it did/didn't happen until such a time as a measurement indicates which. When it does, there will be two of you in different Multiverse branches, one in whose past it did happen, and one in whose past it didn't. -- 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: QTI ---> Expanding brains
Russell Standish wrote: > On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 01:20:21PM -0700, Tom Caylor wrote: >> Except that the evidence seems to support that our past is also >> recorded in a reality "out there" that seems independent of our >> brains. For example when we are reminded of something from our past, >> from looking at old photos, or from someone from our past telling a >> story about us, which as far as we can tell we would have never >> remembered without that reminder from outside of our possible streams >> of consciousness without the reminder. > > You have to distinguish between "being reminded of something" - here > an external event triggers our brain to recall a memory that is really > there, and "finding out about our past" by performing a > measurement. The latter entails completely new knowledge. It is no > different in principle to finding out about the present by performing > a normal measurement. Does that mean that if I don't remember it, it didn't happen? Brent Meeker > > I would argue that this implies our past (that which is beyond our > memories) is a superposition of those histories prior to any > measurement that might distinguish them, just as it might be in an > experimental apparatus measure circular polarisation. > > The independent "out there" feeling is just the self consistency of > all our observations - one that is nevertheless quite remarkable, but > not entailing the existence of something that is out there. > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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
Alastair Malcolm wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Günther Greindl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 9:46 PM > Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law > >> Dear Nichomachus, >> >>> decision. If she measures the particle's spin as positive, she will >>> elect to switch cases, and if she measures it with a negative spin she >>> will keep the one she has. This is because she wants to be sure that, >>> having gotten to this point in the game, there will be at least some >>> branches of her existence where she experiences winning the grand >>> prize. She is not convinced that, were she to decide what to do using >>> only the processes available to her mind, she would guarantee that >>> same result since it is just possible that all of the mutiple versions >>> of herself confronted with the dilemma may make the same bad guess. >> >> I have also thought along these lines some time ago (to use a qubit to >> ensure that all outcomes are chosen, because one should not rely on >> one's mind decohering into all possible decisions). >> >> The essential question is this: what worlds exist? All possible worlds. >> But which worlds are possible? We have, on the one hand, physical >> possibility (this also includes other physical constants etc, but no >> totally unphysical scenarios). >> >> I have long adhered to this "everything physically possible", but this >> does break down under closer scrutiny: first of all, physical relations >> are, when things come down to it, mathematical relations. >> >> So we could conclude with Max Tegmark: all possible mathematical >> structures exist; this is ill defined (but then, why should the >> Everything be well defined?) >> >> Alastair argues in his paper that everything logically possible exists >> (with his non arbitrariness principle) but, while initially appealing, >> it leads to the question: what is logically possible? In what logic? >> Classical/Intuitionist/Deviant logics etc etc...then we are back at >> Max's all possible structures. >> > > The focus of my paper is on theories in principle fully describing universes > (or u-reality). The term 'logically possible' is intended to contrast with > 'physically possible' and refers to descriptions (theories) being internally > non-contradictory (more in note 4 in my paper). Classical logic is usually > intended in these kinds of cases, and I can't actually see from what I know > of other logics how they might relevantly extend the range of possible > inhabitable universes beyond those describable by formal systems operating > according to classical logic. Have you considered para-consistent logics, c.f. Graham Priest "In Contradiction". Brent Meeker >(There is also the issue of their additional > complexity, if some are somehow incorporatable.) I do mention in general > terms possible alternatives to standard formal systems at the start of > section 4. For my purposes all I need is a plausible way around the White > Rabbit problem. In my view its deep philosophical basis and potential > explanation of our relative simplicity and lawfulness are points in favour > of the 'All Possible States' hypothesis, and the idea of not being able to > fully characterize it is pretty much to be expected given its universal > scope. > > Alastair > > Paper at: http://www.physica.freeserve.co.uk/pa01.htm > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: On Russell's Derivation of Quantum Mechanics
Hi Youness, Thanks for this, it is very impressive. You have gone into this in far more depth than the referees of the "Why Occams Razor" paper. I will respond to this soon, but rather than shoot from the hip, I'll take some time to respond thoughtfully. As for not proclaiming scientific revolutions, I sort of do that in http://www.hpcoders.com.au/docs/revolution.pdf , which I wrote for the centenary of Planck's revolutionary paper ushering in quantum mechanics. It is basically an op ed where I noticed the similarities between my approach, Bruno's and Roy Frieden's approaches, and concluded that a scientific revolution was indeed in the offing. Unfortunately, that article didn't get much airtime, which I suspect says more about inherent media biases than anything else. Nevertheless, if the argument I presented stands up, it is very important, so it requires rigorous scrutiny. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence, as the late AC Clarke would say. Thank you for getting the ball rolling on this. On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 08:13:01AM -0700, Youness Ayaita wrote: > > I have elaborated a comprehensive analysis of Russell's derivation of > quantum mechanics; the article can be found online on my homepage: > > http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~yayaita/Russell_Derivation_QM.pdf > > An extract: > > 1. Point of Departure > > In his article "Why Occam's Razor" and in appendix D of his book > "Theory of Nothing", Russell presents a derivation of the postulates > that underly quantum mechanics based on the theory of the Everything > ensemble. In usual treatments of quantum mechanics that can be found > in various textbooks, these postulates aren't justified on any deeper > level. Though, there have been considerable efforts (mostly linked to > the "Everett interpretation", also called "many-worlds" or "relative > state interpretation") to explain the apparent validity of the > postulates describing the collapse of the wavefunction starting from > the no-collapse postulates. Recent contributions have been published > by Wallace and Zurek. But Russell goes even much further: He also > derives the core of quantum mechanics, its no-collapse postulates, > using the theory of the Everything ensemble and a few assumptions. > > If Russell is right, then his derivation is a great and to date > unrivalled highlight of our efforts for justifying the theory of the > Everything ensemble. Aspects of the structure of our world are > explained by reason alone without referring to experiments---this > could be the first great achievement of what I call "rationalist > physics". His work induces Russell to be enthusiastic: referring to > Feynman's famous statement that "nobody understands quantum > mechanics'', Russell writes in chapter 7 of his book: "I can now say > that I understand quantum mechanics.'' and he summarizes "Quantum > mechanics is simply a theory of observation!'' > > The significance of Russell's claim cannot be overrated. And I do hope > that he is right. Nonetheless, I elaborate a thorough criticism of his > derivation. If Russell can disprove my objections (and I hope he > will), my criticism will contribute to a clarification of several > issues. If my criticism holds, then it is up to all of us to improve > Russell's approach or to suggest completely new ideas. So, I invite > all of you to participate actively in the discussion that will follow. > > I will outline Russell's derivation step by step. My presentation > sticks closely to appendix D of Russell's book. I slightly changed > notations in order to avoid confusions. > > > Regards, Youness Ayaita > -- 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: QTI ---> Expanding brains
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 01:20:21PM -0700, Tom Caylor wrote: > > Except that the evidence seems to support that our past is also > recorded in a reality "out there" that seems independent of our > brains. For example when we are reminded of something from our past, > from looking at old photos, or from someone from our past telling a > story about us, which as far as we can tell we would have never > remembered without that reminder from outside of our possible streams > of consciousness without the reminder. You have to distinguish between "being reminded of something" - here an external event triggers our brain to recall a memory that is really there, and "finding out about our past" by performing a measurement. The latter entails completely new knowledge. It is no different in principle to finding out about the present by performing a normal measurement. I would argue that this implies our past (that which is beyond our memories) is a superposition of those histories prior to any measurement that might distinguish them, just as it might be in an experimental apparatus measure circular polarisation. The independent "out there" feeling is just the self consistency of all our observations - one that is nevertheless quite remarkable, but not entailing the existence of something that is out there. -- 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: QTI ---> Expanding brains
On Apr 20, 3:00 am, Günther Greindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Your identity must be preserved as your brain continues to expand to make > > room for all that informaton that must be stored. Now, I find it hard to > > Why should all the info be stored/your id. be preserved? > We constantly forget stuff - as you get older and older, you will forget > past stuff, so that different past histories would be compatible with > your present state - maybe something like the quantum erasure experiment > can function as an analogue: if you erase all info about which path is > taken, superposition is restored. > > Same with brain: if you forget, many pasts will correspond to your > present state. Your present state will be something like a narrow valve > moving along a river - everything contained in the valve is "you", and > the water flows through (water = events); but what is outside the "you" > expands quite fast. You have no claim to a specific past which is not > correlated with your brain state anymore. > > Cheers, > Günther Except that the evidence seems to support that our past is also recorded in a reality "out there" that seems independent of our brains. For example when we are reminded of something from our past, from looking at old photos, or from someone from our past telling a story about us, which as far as we can tell we would have never remembered without that reminder from outside of our possible streams of consciousness without the reminder. Like Bruno says, we might have to simulate the whole universe, or at least the galaxy, in order to make sure we were duplicated at a sufficient level of accuracy. Actually my last statement begs the question, or supports my point even more, it implies that there are levels of accuracy below (more accurate than) the sufficient level. Accurate about what? About our history, about our identity. By the way, there are other theories of immortality which are "supported" just as much as a quantum theory of immortality. And even more general than immortality, why does (how can) the correct theory of everything have to be supported by physical experiment? Physical experiment shows only the normal probabilistic tendencies of things, not everything, not the tails of the curves, where we have things like immortality. If there is such a thing as immortality, how can we use our sense of "finding it hard to believe" (Saibal) to argue validly about it. Why could not our consciousness keep expanding indefinitely? I think we have to face the limits of our scientific process when it comes to these things. And when we do that, we open the doors to seeing with our heart. "Then from on high--somewhere in the distance there's a voice that calls-remember who you are. If you lose yourself--your courage soon will follow." (Gavin Greenaway and Trevor Horn, Sound the Bugle) "God has set eternity in our hearts." (King Solomon, "the wisest man in history") "We are luminous beings." (Yoda ;) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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
- Original Message - From: "Günther Greindl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 9:46 PM Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law > Dear Nichomachus, > >> decision. If she measures the particle's spin as positive, she will >> elect to switch cases, and if she measures it with a negative spin she >> will keep the one she has. This is because she wants to be sure that, >> having gotten to this point in the game, there will be at least some >> branches of her existence where she experiences winning the grand >> prize. She is not convinced that, were she to decide what to do using >> only the processes available to her mind, she would guarantee that >> same result since it is just possible that all of the mutiple versions >> of herself confronted with the dilemma may make the same bad guess. > > > I have also thought along these lines some time ago (to use a qubit to > ensure that all outcomes are chosen, because one should not rely on > one's mind decohering into all possible decisions). > > The essential question is this: what worlds exist? All possible worlds. > But which worlds are possible? We have, on the one hand, physical > possibility (this also includes other physical constants etc, but no > totally unphysical scenarios). > > I have long adhered to this "everything physically possible", but this > does break down under closer scrutiny: first of all, physical relations > are, when things come down to it, mathematical relations. > > So we could conclude with Max Tegmark: all possible mathematical > structures exist; this is ill defined (but then, why should the > Everything be well defined?) > > Alastair argues in his paper that everything logically possible exists > (with his non arbitrariness principle) but, while initially appealing, > it leads to the question: what is logically possible? In what logic? > Classical/Intuitionist/Deviant logics etc etc...then we are back at > Max's all possible structures. > The focus of my paper is on theories in principle fully describing universes (or u-reality). The term 'logically possible' is intended to contrast with 'physically possible' and refers to descriptions (theories) being internally non-contradictory (more in note 4 in my paper). Classical logic is usually intended in these kinds of cases, and I can't actually see from what I know of other logics how they might relevantly extend the range of possible inhabitable universes beyond those describable by formal systems operating according to classical logic. (There is also the issue of their additional complexity, if some are somehow incorporatable.) I do mention in general terms possible alternatives to standard formal systems at the start of section 4. For my purposes all I need is a plausible way around the White Rabbit problem. In my view its deep philosophical basis and potential explanation of our relative simplicity and lawfulness are points in favour of the 'All Possible States' hypothesis, and the idea of not being able to fully characterize it is pretty much to be expected given its universal scope. Alastair Paper at: http://www.physica.freeserve.co.uk/pa01.htm --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: QTI ---> Expanding brains
> Your identity must be preserved as your brain continues to expand to make > room for all that informaton that must be stored. Now, I find it hard to Why should all the info be stored/your id. be preserved? We constantly forget stuff - as you get older and older, you will forget past stuff, so that different past histories would be compatible with your present state - maybe something like the quantum erasure experiment can function as an analogue: if you erase all info about which path is taken, superposition is restored. Same with brain: if you forget, many pasts will correspond to your present state. Your present state will be something like a narrow valve moving along a river - everything contained in the valve is "you", and the water flows through (water = events); but what is outside the "you" expands quite fast. You have no claim to a specific past which is not correlated with your brain state anymore. Cheers, Günther --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
