--- Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 29/06/07, Niels-Jeroen Vandamme > > > Personally, I do not believe in coincidence. > Everything in the universe > > might seem stochastic, but it all has a logical > explanation. I believe the > > same applies to quantum chaos, though quantum > mechanics is still far too > > recondite for us to understand this phenomenon. If > something would be purely > > random, then there would be no reason at all why > it would be what it is. If > > you toss a coin, for example, what side it will > land upon depends on the > > dynamics of its course, and not of coincidence. > > > > But if there can be no interaction between the > copies, why would the > > consciousness end up in one copy rather than > another, if they are all > > exactly alike? > > Imagine a program that creates an observer that > splits and > differentiates every second, so that the number of > observers increases > exponentially with time. From the point of view of > someone outside the > system, it is perfectly deterministic. But from the > point of view of > an individual observer within the program, there is > no way to know > which branch you will end up in: Sure there is- you will end up in both branches, assuming that your information content defines "you". If you go to sleep and wake up in branch A, that doesn't mean that "you" ended up in branch A, because sitting right next to you is a guy with a perfectly legitimate claim to being you and waking up in branch B! Both streams of consciousness exist, and just because you happen to be in one shouldn't make the others any less valid. There is a general rule here- if a process is deterministic for one observer it must be deterministic for all observers. Everyone has the same laws of physics, after all. This reminds me of QM debates about which slit the light "really" went through- it went through both and that's the only way to describe it that's consistent with experiment.
> you just have to > wait and see what > happens. So an objectively deterministic process can > yield true (not > just apparent) first person randomness. This is the > explanation of > quantum randomness in the many worlds interpretation > of quantum > mechanics. > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > > ----- > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: > http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. http://sims.yahoo.com/ ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&user_secret=7d7fb4d8
