On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Russell Standish wrote:
[Jack wrote]
> > What I am trying to do is to look at the consequences of the
> > claims made by the quantum suicide camp. The claim is that consciousness
> > 'flows into' possible continuations of oneself and is, in effect,
> > conserved as long as such continuations exist. I by no means accept this
> > claim. However I see no reason why you say it would deny the existence of
> > copying machines.
>
> Because copying machines increase one's measure, but not effective
> probability, which remains normalised.
I agree with that statement but don't agree that it's consistent
with QS.
> In this copying machine incident, we assume that a person experiencing
> the event has a 50% chance of experiencing being either copy. However,
> each Jane will be fully concsious - there is no diluting of that
> conciousness. An outside observer will be unable to distinguish who
> was the "real Jane".
Neither would an inside observer. I maintain that the distinction
is meaningless.
[I wrote]
> > If the problem is that QSers may deny that measure is conserved,
> > that problem is not my fault. By their other words it is clear that they
> > believe it is. (You may be included in the group I mean by 'them'.) I am
> > the one using the term correctly.
[this paragraph still applies]
> I still don't see what measure has to do with conciousness!
That is the problem.
From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
>We of the 'quantum suicide camp' deny absolutely that consciousness, or
>anything else 'flows'. Flow is a function of time, which is subjective, not
>an objective feature of reality. To say consciousness flows, is like saying
>a program creates the hardware on which it runs, and the programming
>language in which it is written.
I'd say there's a split in your camp - and you have been on both
sides of it! I don't see how you can say the above but reject the SSA.
>Consciousness is not some special property you can bottle, for God's sake.
>But if I am conscious in this universe, and the next one is virtually
>identical, then I am virtually certain that I will be conscious in that one.
The above paragraph is incomprehensible, starting with your use of
the letter 'I'. I am not sure what this letter is supposed to signify in
that context.
- - - - - - -
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 Wed Aug 18 1999 - 09:05:21 PDT