Re: zombie wives

From: Russell Standish <>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 10:57:49 +1000 (EST)

> George Levy writes:
> >Russell Standish is as infinite as the continuum, and in
> > fact there is a path along the Russell Standish continuum that eventually
> > becomes George Levy.
> Russell Standish Responds
> >No - I don't believe this is true in the MWI of Quantum Mechanics. It
> >may be true of the complete everything universe - as really wierd
> >stuff can happen there.
> I am sorry that Russell did not appreciate the idea of being morphed into me.
> I think he would have liked the experience.

Its nice to have an injection of humour in this group!

> George Levy writes:
> >So we are all in a sense related through all the
> > conscious points (locus of consciousness?) in the MW that separate us. :-)
> Russel Standish replies:
> >Or perhaps reread the elementary QM textbooks. There does appear to be
> >a lot of confusion over precisely what the multiverse is (Not the same
> >as the Everything universe of Tegmark), of measure, of time etc. I
> >applaud Jacques' attempts at clarifying these ideas and keeping us
> >honest. There will of course be several different measures applicable
> >to different sets. For example Wei Dai's universal measure (which
> >applies minimally over bitstrings representing different possibility)
> >is completely unrelated to measure induced by the "wavefunction of the
> >universe" in MWI, that Jacques refers to. The measure referred to in
> >RSSA is most likely the same as the MWI measure, rather than some
> >concept of number of differentiated classical states (eg concsious
> >states), particularly as the latter has the property of growing
> >exponentially with time.
> Why should we restrict our scope of the universe to anything less than what
> is necessary to maintain us alive? In fact in the presence of QS, the
> effective size of the Universe will increase to whatever it takes to keep us
> alive! If the size of the universe as defined by the MWI is not sufficiently
> large than by all means we are jutified by the WAP to increase its size. The
> problem is not how we could justify QS but how we can avoid the weird stuff
> that happens when our scope is too big. But here again we can use WAP to
> define the limits and eliminate the weird stuff.

I am about 70% convinced that the AP (weak or otherwise) actually
constrains us to live in QM style MWI. I am still ruminating on the
subject, and have posted ocasionally on this topic in the past (check
the archives). Hopefully, when I'm convinced enough by my own
arguments, I might write a paper on it.

In any case, if the AP does not constrain us to live in the MWI, I'm
damned if I can think of any other reason why we are living in the MWI
- it becomes one of those weird facts of reality demanding explanation.

> I think that we must take the bull by the horns and in the absence of
> **sufficient reason**, face the possibility of living in the Plenitude or the
> Everything Universe. The challenge is to bridge the gap between this infinity
> and our observable world and to show the power of the WAP to do so.
> George

Dr. Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit,
University of NSW Phone 9385 6967
Sydney 2052 Fax 9385 6965
Room 2075, Red Centre
Received on Sun Sep 05 1999 - 17:58:10 PDT

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