Re: QTI --- Expanding brains
On Apr 22, 6:26 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/4/22 Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Your external event is part of what I was referring to as out there. I would argue for the consistency and the merits of the view that our identity is tied not only to our brains but also to events recorded outside of our brains. Someone with Alzheimers still has a history (and also an identity) recorded externally to their brains, a history that can be read by other persons. I know, the quantum superposition view entails that there are multiple histories being read by multiple persons in multiple universes. As I have said before on this list, I think that this just multiplies the problem. If your identity is tied only to your brain, and the first person observer moments that it can experience based solely on internal memory, then you have multiple people in multiple universes treating the Alzheimers patient as worthless (since they know that the patient cannot remember these accomplishments), and multiple Alzheimers patients believing that he/she is worthless, with no identity so speak of. What's wrong with the view that our memory is augmented by the external world around us? In fact, it has been discussed here before that perhaps consciousness itself needs a world external to our brains in order to keep living. I'm for the view that life/consciousness/everything is about relationships rather than data. The Alzheimer's patient is significant to other people because they remember him and maintain a relationship with him. If he has forgotten who exactly they are but still retains some sort of emotional attachment to them - the nice woman who has come to visit me - then that is a feeling and it is part of the content of the observer moment. But as memory and cognition deteriorate and only the vegetative functions remain, then unfortunately what makes the person a person is fading away. That's why it's so sad when a family member gets Alzheimer's. -- Stathis Papaioannou Another way to look at it (in a non-everything is OMs view) is that it's sad because the apparent opportunity to appreciate the person is fading. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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
John, I maintain that we all, whether we admit it or not, are doing more than simply building our life history in a constructive way (in the mathematical sense, sorry), bit by bit, from one observer moment to the next based only one a logical progression from remembered observer moments. This constructive, step-by-step, progression is what I would call from the inside out. I maintain that we also invoke a from the outside in type of process in our living, in the acquiring of life for our consciousness. Again, this outside is not from other remembered observer moments (that would be still from inside the set of remembered observer moments). I think that if it were really true that from the inside out is the only way (as it seems some, including Russell, maintain), that would be akin to what you call abiding 'firmly' on our present mindset. But in fact we don't do that for very long before we feel that we are stagnating, and then hopefully we look to the horizon of the spirit for more life from the true eternal essence/Person. To correct my previous quote of Yoda, Luminous beings we are. Tom On Apr 22, 6:42 am, John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom (and Russell and others in the discussion): (Remark: I did not read Russell's book, it is above my head to follow his (math-related?) logic. So I rely on remarks I read on the list. Sorry, if it is unfounded or erroneous). our there The ominous MIR assumption (Mind Independent Rreality) I've debated on the Karl Jaspers Forum and other lists, on the grounds that our mind is PART of that MIR and cannot look at it as the legendary scientist in his armchair who visualizes the rolling little fireball he calls the BigBang Universe. After Colin Hayes (maybe I misunderstood him?) I use our 'in'- vision(s) as mini-solipsism containing a figment of a perceived reality on a basis I do not identify. I MAY have impacts into my consciousness (whatever that may be) but no way to understand them as is, only as my intellect can translate 'them?' for me (the ominous I). With similar 'built' in all aspects of our mentalty it can include very similar facets, -not identical ones- we all have differencies in all the similarities. So we have a basis for discussion. The ideas in this debate are all applying circumstances, facts?, concepts and conclusions as understandable(?) by the human mind - ours. I am missing Bruno's humility (IF comp is valid...). Of course the entire list is positioned into a rather physicalistic logical domain. Russell once (~decade ago?) objected to my terming it as 'some scientific religion' - meaning: a belief system (of any kind). I want to press the much wider conditional possibilities than the ones WE can imagine or just even speak about in human logic- language. The acquisition of epistemic enrichment - allowed for even fantasy-tools as in Gedanklen-experiments - is IMO not limited. Abiding 'firmly' on our present mindset is a negation of further future expansions unlimited. Just expressing my thoughts - not in a constructive way. John M --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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
2008/4/22 Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Your external event is part of what I was referring to as out there. I would argue for the consistency and the merits of the view that our identity is tied not only to our brains but also to events recorded outside of our brains. Someone with Alzheimers still has a history (and also an identity) recorded externally to their brains, a history that can be read by other persons. I know, the quantum superposition view entails that there are multiple histories being read by multiple persons in multiple universes. As I have said before on this list, I think that this just multiplies the problem. If your identity is tied only to your brain, and the first person observer moments that it can experience based solely on internal memory, then you have multiple people in multiple universes treating the Alzheimers patient as worthless (since they know that the patient cannot remember these accomplishments), and multiple Alzheimers patients believing that he/she is worthless, with no identity so speak of. What's wrong with the view that our memory is augmented by the external world around us? In fact, it has been discussed here before that perhaps consciousness itself needs a world external to our brains in order to keep living. I'm for the view that life/consciousness/everything is about relationships rather than data. The Alzheimer's patient is significant to other people because they remember him and maintain a relationship with him. If he has forgotten who exactly they are but still retains some sort of emotional attachment to them - the nice woman who has come to visit me - then that is a feeling and it is part of the content of the observer moment. But as memory and cognition deteriorate and only the vegetative functions remain, then unfortunately what makes the person a person is fading away. That's why it's so sad when a family member gets Alzheimer's. -- 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: QTI --- Expanding brains
Tom (and Russell and others in the discussion): (Remark: I did not read Russell's book, it is above my head to follow his (math-related?) logic. So I rely on remarks I read on the list. Sorry, if it is unfounded or erroneous). our there The ominous MIR assumption (Mind Independent Rreality) I've debated on the Karl Jaspers Forum and other lists, on the grounds that our mind is PART of that MIR and cannot look at it as the legendary scientist in his armchair who visualizes the rolling little fireball he calls the BigBang Universe. After Colin Hayes (maybe I misunderstood him?) I use our 'in'- vision(s) as mini-solipsism containing a figment of a perceived reality on a basis I do not identify. I MAY have impacts into my consciousness (whatever that may be) but no way to understand them as is, only as my intellect can translate 'them?' for me (the ominous I). With similar 'built' in all aspects of our mentalty it can include very similar facets, -not identical ones- we all have differencies in all the similarities. So we have a basis for discussion. The ideas in this debate are all applying circumstances, facts?, concepts and conclusions as understandable(?) by the human mind - ours. I am missing Bruno's humility (IF comp is valid...). Of course the entire list is positioned into a rather physicalistic logical domain. Russell once (~decade ago?) objected to my terming it as 'some scientific religion' - meaning: a belief system (of any kind). I want to press the much wider conditional possibilities than the ones WE can imagine or just even speak about in human logic- language. The acquisition of epistemic enrichment - allowed for even fantasy-tools as in Gedanklen-experiments - is IMO not limited. Abiding 'firmly' on our present mindset is a negation of further future expansions unlimited. Just expressing my thoughts - not in a constructive way. John M On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. 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 Your external event is part of what I was referring to as out there. I would argue for the consistency and the merits of the view that our identity is tied not only to our brains but also to events recorded outside of our brains. Someone with Alzheimers still has a history (and also an identity) recorded externally to their brains, a history that can be read by other persons. I know, the quantum superposition view entails that there are multiple histories being read by multiple persons in multiple universes. As I have said before on this list, I think that this just multiplies the problem. If your identity is tied only to your brain, and the first person observer moments that it can experience based solely on internal memory, then you have multiple people in multiple universes treating the Alzheimers patient as worthless (since they know that the patient cannot remember these accomplishments), and multiple Alzheimers patients believing that he/she is worthless, with no identity so speak of. What's wrong with the view that our memory is augmented by the external world around us? In fact, it has been discussed here before that perhaps consciousness itself needs a world external to our brains in order to keep living. I'm for the view
Re: QTI --- Expanding brains
On Apr 20, 6:10 pm, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. 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. I find this to be a fascinating idea, to relate mutiple possible histories to quantum superpositions. How does this notion relate to the idea that mutiple possible histories may degenerate to single now? Information about the past states of the universe being lost is equivalent to a gain in entropy, such that the state of the universe at time = t may not uniquely identify the state of the universe at time t. Superficially this appears to be symmetrical with the notion of many possible worlds at time t springing from a single state at t, another example of time invariance. However, it would be impossible, even in principle, to determine which one of these possible histories is the real one, since it would be meaningless to claim that only one led to the current state. If more than one history degenerate in to a particular state, then they are all correct in this scenario since irreversible steps make recovering one unique history impossible. But the meaning of the notion that the outcome an experiment performed in the past exists in a superposition of outcomes until the moment of an observation probably does depend greatly on whether one considers the existence of the world to be observer-dependent or independent. Is the ensemble merely the set of all possible observer experiences? Or are there ensembles that are at least as valid that take reality to be external and observer independent? I intuitively suspect that there is nothing special about what we call consciousness, and that an observation is any physical measurement, be it a photon impinging on a retina or a photodetector or whatever. It does not seem as sensical to me to claim that a measurement made with instruments does not constitute an observation until looked at by a conscious observer. However, I am trying to understand the differences in these two views -- not the easiest task to do since I am invested in one of them already. I hate to tax the patience of those who read this list with yet another thought experiment, but I think it may be useful to illustrate this with an example. Suppose that there is a distant galaxy that has never been observed from Earth, but only because no one has yet looked it with a sufficiently powered telescope. When we do decide to point the Hubble at it, we either will or will not observe the aftermath of a particularly dramatic supernova whose light would have been visible from earth centuries ago, assuming that it in fact happened, and someone had looked at it. If I look at it with the Hubble tomorrow and I see the results of a powerful supernova, I can safely assume that the version of me observing it exists within the same reality as one that experienced that supernova. If I do not see the results of the supernova (which would have been evident if it had taken place) then that means that the 'I' who sees the galaxy exists in a branch that did not experience that supernova. The superposition would be resolved into actualities by my observation. Here is the problem: the light from that supernova would have first reached earth centuries before I made that observation. Hence, I would not be the first earthbound entity to observe that event. Perhaps the first conscious entity, but inanimate objects on the Earth also saw the light from that supernova. It would seem that in this case the superpostion was not one of genuine quantum superposition but only uncertainty about history from our own ignorance. Suppose that I do see that a supernova occurred, but unbeknownst to me, an ancient astronomer had already observed the supernova. Would my
Re: QTI --- Expanding brains
Russell Standish wrote: 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 And if I don't remember if I am Jesus or not, then there are two of me in different Multiverse branches, one in which I wasn't Jesus, and one in which I was? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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
Tom Caylor wrote: Russell Standish wrote: 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 And if I don't remember if I am Jesus or not, then there are two of me in different Multiverse branches, one in which I wasn't Jesus, and one in which I was? So I might as well believe that I am. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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
The concept at fault here is the I - there is no essence to you, so it is rather meaningless to speak of what you where if there is neither exterior physical evidence (records) or interior physical evidence (memory) which ascertains a history pertaining to the current Tom Caylor pattern. Cheers, Günther Tom Caylor wrote: And if I don't remember if I am Jesus or not, then there are two of me in different Multiverse branches, one in which I wasn't Jesus, and one in which I was? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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
Tom Caylor wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Russell Standish wrote: 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 And if I don't remember if I am Jesus or not, then there are two of me in different Multiverse branches, one in which I wasn't Jesus, and one in which I was? So I might as well believe that I am. Psychiatrist: Look--how do you know you're God? O'Toole: Well, every time I pray, I find that I'm talking to myself. --- Peter O'Toole in The Ruling Class Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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
Reminds me of a quote by Aliester Crowley: Psychiatrist: Look--how do you know you're God? O'Toole: Well, every time I pray, I find that I'm talking to myself. --- Peter O'Toole in The Ruling Class Brent Meeker From Magick by Aliester Crowley: I am a God, I very God of very God; I go upon my way to work my will; I have made matter and motion for my mirror; I have decreed for my delight that Nothingness should figure itself as twain, that I might dream a dance of names and natures, and enjoy the substance of simplicity by watching the wanderings of my shadows. I am not that which is not; I know which knows not; I love that which loves not. For I am Love, whereby division dies in delight; I am Knowledge, whereby all parts, plunged in the whole, perish and pass into perfection; and I am that I am, the being wherein Being is lost in Nothing, nor deigns to be but its Will to unfold its nature, its need to express its perfection in all possibilities, each phase a partial phantasm, and yet inevitable and absolute. I am Omniscient, for naught exists for me unless I know it. I am Omnipotent, for naught occurs save by Necessity my soul's expression through my will to be, to do, to suffer the symbols of itself. I am Omnipresent, for naught exists where I am not, who fashioned space as a condition of my consciousness myself, who am the center of all, and my circumference the frame of my fancy. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 12:56:22PM -0700, Tom Caylor wrote: Russell Standish wrote: 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. And if I don't remember if I am Jesus or not, then there are two of me in different Multiverse branches, one in which I wasn't Jesus, and one in which I was? What possible experiment might you perform that would resolve this issue? The main one I can think of is asking your parents about your birth date. If your parents are called Joseph and Mary, and your birthdate was around 4BCE, then there is some chance you might be Jesus. Otherwise, I would say you have already done the measurement, and are firmly living in the branch in which you aren't Jesus. Cheers -- 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 Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 12:56:22PM -0700, Tom Caylor wrote: Russell Standish wrote: 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. And if I don't remember if I am Jesus or not, then there are two of me in different Multiverse branches, one in which I wasn't Jesus, and one in which I was? What possible experiment might you perform that would resolve this issue? The main one I can think of is asking your parents about your birth date. If your parents are called Joseph and Mary, and your birthdate was around 4BCE, then there is some chance you might be Jesus. Otherwise, I would say you have already done the measurement, and are firmly living in the branch in which you aren't Jesus. Cheers What if my parents are named Riley and Mae and my birthdate is 1939, but I remember being Jesus? Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 06:10:52PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: What if my parents are named Riley and Mae and my birthdate is 1939, but I remember being Jesus? Brent Meeker Sounds to me like you would be suffering delusions then, but I'm no psychoanalyst. -- 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 Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 06:10:52PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: What if my parents are named Riley and Mae and my birthdate is 1939, but I remember being Jesus? Brent Meeker Sounds to me like you would be suffering delusions then, but I'm no psychoanalyst. So a memory doesn't pick out a particular branch of the universe in which the memory is veridical; it just picks out a branch in which it occurred. So your brain doesn't have to record more memories as you grow older, because it doesn't maintain a veridical record. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 07:56:33PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 06:10:52PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: What if my parents are named Riley and Mae and my birthdate is 1939, but I remember being Jesus? Brent Meeker Sounds to me like you would be suffering delusions then, but I'm no psychoanalyst. So a memory doesn't pick out a particular branch of the universe in which the memory is veridical; it just picks out a branch in which it occurred. So your brain doesn't have to record more memories as you grow older, because it doesn't maintain a veridical record. Brent Meeker The latter statement is evidently true, as is evidenced by senile dementia. However, observer moments can only be defined by the contents of memory. To resolve this, one must suppose that branches merge as memories are lost - ie quantum erasure. This only makes sense in the quantum state = OM interpretation - in physicalist interpretations of Multiverse branches as somehow being out there, David Deutsch-style, this will not make sense at all. Cheers -- 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 21, 8:56 pm, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 07:56:33PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 06:10:52PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: What if my parents are named Riley and Mae and my birthdate is 1939, but I remember being Jesus? Brent Meeker Sounds to me like you would be suffering delusions then, but I'm no psychoanalyst. So a memory doesn't pick out a particular branch of the universe in which the memory is veridical; it just picks out a branch in which it occurred. So your brain doesn't have to record more memories as you grow older, because it doesn't maintain a veridical record. Brent Meeker The latter statement is evidently true, as is evidenced by senile dementia. However, observer moments can only be defined by the contents of memory. To resolve this, one must suppose that branches merge as memories are lost - ie quantum erasure. This only makes sense in the quantum state = OM interpretation - in physicalist interpretations of Multiverse branches as somehow being out there, David Deutsch-style, this will not make sense at all. Cheers -- ---- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ----- Hide quoted text - And the purpose of my post about the Alzheimer's patient (which I don't think anyone really answered) was to illustrate a consequence of this view that observer moments can only be defined by the contents of memory, where memory refers to the internal memory only. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 09:47:39PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: Do the contents of memory consist of what is presently being remembered in an OM, or does it refer to what might be remembered at some other time, or to the set of all things remember in all OMs? Brent Meeker I think this is an interesting question in itself. I would be tempted to answer this along the lines of the self/other distinction, memories that are self count towards the OM, whereas other memories (ie what is available for measurement in the environment) do not, but allow for OMs to transition into successor OMs on measurement. But quite possibly the answer is that depends - on the question being asked, the thought experiment proposed and so on - ah shut up and calculate he says -- 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
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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
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: 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
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: 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
QTI --- Expanding brains
Yes, I should have mentioned ASSA and RSSA as discussed on this list in the dark ages. I don't buy QTI for quite a few reasons. A model independent objection I have is the following. If you accept QTI, then the information you have about your history will have to grow without limit (if not, then effectively you have a finite lifetime as you can only store a finite amount of information in a finite volume). 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 believe that a superlarge brain the size of the galaxy would still be me. :) - Original Message - From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 03:24 AM Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 02:22:23AM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote: First off, how is it that the MWI does not imply quantum immortality? MWI is just quantum mechanics without the wavefunction collapse postulate. This then implies that after a measurement your wavefuntion will be in a superposition of the states corresponding to definite outcomes. But we cannot just consider suicide experiments and then say that just because branches of the wavefuntion exist in which I survive, I'll find myself there with 100% probability. The fact that probabilities are conserved follows from unitary time evolution. If a state evolves into a linear combination of states in which I'm dead and alive then the probabilities of all these states add up to 1. The probability of finding myself to be alive at all after the experiment is then less than the probability of me finding myself about to perform the suicide experiment. The probability of me finding myself to be alive after n suicide experiments decays exponentially with n. Therefore I should not expect to find myself having survived many suicide experiments. Note that contrary to what you often read in the popular accounts of the multiverse, the multiverse does not split when we make observations. The most natural state for the entire multiverse is just an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian. The energy can be taken to be zero, therefore the wavefunction of the multiverse satisfies the equation: One should also note that this is the ASSA position. The ASSA was introduced by Jacques Mallah in his argument against quantum immortality, and a number of participants in this list adhere to the ASSA position. Its counterpart if the RSSA, which does imply quantum immortality (provided that the no cul-de-sac conjecture holds), and other list participants adhere to the RSSA. To date, no argument has convincingly demonstrated which of the ASSA or RSSA should be preferred, so it has become somewhat a matter of taste. There is some discussion of this in my book Theory of Nothing. Cheers -- -- -- 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 20/04/2008, Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't buy QTI for quite a few reasons. A model independent objection I have is the following. If you accept QTI, then the information you have about your history will have to grow without limit (if not, then effectively you have a finite lifetime as you can only store a finite amount of information in a finite volume). 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 believe that a superlarge brain the size of the galaxy would still be me. There's no guarantee that you will stay you in any particular way. After all, your brain is infinitely larger now than it was before your nervous system developed. -- 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: QTI --- Expanding brains
Saibal Mitra wrote: Yes, I should have mentioned ASSA and RSSA as discussed on this list in the dark ages. I don't buy QTI for quite a few reasons. A model independent objection I have is the following. If you accept QTI, then the information you have about your history will have to grow without limit (if not, then effectively you have a finite lifetime as you can only store a finite amount of information in a finite volume). 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 believe that a superlarge brain the size of the galaxy would still be me. :) I had a good knockdown argument against this, but I forgot it. :-) Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
