From: <GSLevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 14:54:10 EDT

In a message dated 99-07-01 21:27:20 EDT, jqm1584.domain.name.hidden writes:

<< The MWI is deterministic, so the standard idea of probability does
 not apply. >>

Not true.

A dice has six sides, and a dice throw will generate one number in the range
from 1 to 6, exactly in that range, not more not less. This fact is
deterministic. However, the ACTUAL number that the dice will produce is

Similarly, all the possible links allowing consciousness to propagate from
one frame in the MW to another are deterministic that is, constrained by the
physical laws, and mirroring these laws, our rationality. However, the actual
frame where one particular conscious PERSPECTIVE will find itself, is
probabilistic. It's all in the eyes of the beholder. This is precisely the
essence of quantum indeterminacy.

So while the MW itself is deterministic, our perception of it is

I say:
> One more issue about consciousness. It only exists in the eyes of the
> beholder.

Jacques responds:
<< Either it exists or it doesn't.>>

I think the root of the difference between Jacques and the rest of us is in
our perception of the world. Jacque believes in an absolute physical world
and we believe in a relative one. Which is it? For sure I don't know.
However, let me make some analogies, and Jacques is welcome to say that this
is like <<Given A, B ...Therefore everyone will believe C. ">>

Does motion exist or is it in the eyes of the beholder? As Einstein said "in
the eyes of the observer?"

Does light require a substrate to propagate? Does consciousness require a
physical implementation? And by the way, what is the meaning of "physical
implementation?" and how is it related to our rationality?

Is the measure of the Empire State Building increased because one or one
thousand or one million people have seen it? Is the measure of a conscious
experience increased because it's played back once or replayed many times?

I already know Jacques' answer. (If A and B then C).

Why does Jacques believe in the absolute and we believe in the relative?
(This is just my guess) Maybe it's in our perception of the size of the MW.
Is it finite or infinite? Is it the same as c, the continuum. Or larger?

George Levy

attached mail follows:

On Sun, 27 Jun 1999 GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> In a message dated 99-06-25 17:55:59 EDT, Jacques Mallah wrote:
> << On 24 xxx -1, Marchal wrote:
> > Jacques M Mallah wrote:
> > > Suffice it to say, though, that whether the number of branches is
> > >finite or infinite makes little difference. The point is you lose measure
> > >with a QS.
> > >Some people in the multiverse have more measure than others,
> > >and measure is proportional to effective probability. If you deny this I
> > >don't see how you can even explain why people descended from apes have
> > >higher effective probability than those that form spontaneously.
> >
> > I do agree with the relation between measure and effective probability. >>

> Excuse my ignorance but what exactly is "effective" probability.

        This has been discussed many times on the list. You could search
the archive message bodies.
        The MWI is deterministic, so the standard idea of probability does
not apply. The effective probability of seeing X is the number of
observers who see X divided by the total number of observers.

> The real requirement [for consciousness] is rationality of consciousness

        Enough said about that.

> One more issue about consciousness. It only exists in the eyes of the
> beholder.

        Either it exists or it doesn't.

> In addition, you guys get confused with TIME. The characters in a movie or
> documentary are obviously not conscious when the movie is shown because they
> are incapable of rational thought or behavior in the real world at that time.

        In other words, because the causal relationships aren't there,
just like we were saying.

> However, they are definitely conscious when the movie is recorded because
> they are rationally aware of their world.

        If A then A. If not, not.

> Hal:
> >(My solution is, as I said earlier, that the question isn't meaningful,
> >because it is at best another iteration of an already-produced
> >calculation,
> >and it doesn't matter if a conscious calculation is instantiated multiple
> >times.)
> Jacques:
> >I obviously reject that.
> And this is the point where the idea of measure comes in. Is there any loss
> in measure if a playback absolutely identical with the original play is
> eliminated? Is there any gain in measure if the original play is repeated
> once, twice or a million times? In my opinion there is no loss and no gain.
> Consciousness is playback independent and is also time independent. You could
> implement it on a time share computer and it would not know the difference
> even if the active time intervals last one microsecond every billion years.
> As long as the rational link between the time segments is maintained.

        What then is measure proportional to if not number of
implementations? Obviously it is not a constant as a function of
different computations, and all computations occur.

                         - - - - - - -
              Jacques Mallah (jqm1584.domain.name.hidden)
       Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
            My URL: http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/
Received on Fri Jul 02 1999 - 11:57:53 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST