This business of histories not interacting... does the Bell Inequality have
some bearing here? My intuition is that the universe behaves classically
while it's linked to consciousness - quantum interference is fine as long as
it leaves no 'split-states' hanging around to be
observed/otherwise-directly-affecting-consciousness. (Or, rephrasing,
quantum behaviour can be observed after-the-fact, but interacting with
split-states splits consciousness and maybe also produces nonconscious
split-minds.)
The short version: the universe is fully quantum whenever we aren't looking
at it.
2008/12/1 Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
>
> On 30 Nov 2008, at 20:21, M.A. wrote:
>
> *Bruno,*
> * Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the detailed explanations.
> I'll post my responses in an interlinear manner using color to
> differentiate (if that's ok). M.A.*
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
> *To:* everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 29, 2008 3:49 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Consciousness and free will
>
>
> On 29 Nov 2008, at 16:45, M.A. wrote:
>
> *(Assuming MEC/Comp.and MWI) If the computational universe which I
> experience*
>
>
>
> Assuming MEC I would say *you* experience an infinity of computational
> histories.
>
>
>
> The term "universe" is far too ambiguous (now).
>
> *But isn't each history separated from all others by impermeable
> walls? Do you mean that the word "universe" is
> ambiguous or just my use of it?*
>
>
> The word "universe" is ambiguous.
> And yes, each history is separated from all others, despite all histories
> are mixed in some other histories. But *you* (third person, your bodies)
> belongs to a continuum of histories, and although they does not interact, it
> changes your probabilities on your possible consistent extensions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *is a single instance of a vast array of similar universes playing out
> every possible variation of the initial axioms, then no one universe could
> depart from its predetermined program since in so doing it would alter its
> program and duplicate that of another universe thus spoiling the overall
> mission of implementing every possible variation.*
>
>
> Histories can bifurcate in a way that you will find yourself in both
> histories ("you" seen from some third person point of view). Each histories
> is deterministic but, your future is uncertain.
>
> *But what about the first person "me"? "I" am only conscious of one
> history.*
>
>
> Perahps. It could be a question of language. If you look at an electronic
> orbital you could see a cloud of possible positions, accessible by
> position-measurement. In a sense you "look" (indirectly) at the many
> histories you are simultaneously in, a bit like you computes in many
> histories you are in when you are using a quantum computer. When we will
> accept, not only digital brain, but quantum digital brain change of language
> will occur. To use the correct language now could be like learning quantum
> field theory for doing a pizza.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *It follows that each program-universe is completely detirministic*
>
>
> All right.
>
>
>
> *and that consciousness is merely an observing passenger inside the
> program;*
>
>
>
> At some point I could "defined" consciousness as the state of
> (instinctively at first) betting on a history. This will speed up yourself
> relatively to your current stories, and make greater the set of your
> possible continuation. As an exemple you become aware an asteroïd is coming
> nearby make it possible for you to envisage a set of possible decisions,
> which can themselves augment your probability of survival.
>
> *It seems like the present copy of "me" can "envisage these decisions",
> but be unable to carry them out unless they are part of his deterministic
> history.*
>
>
> Yes. In some case, perhaps not your's, this can be helped by doctor,
> shaman, yoga, regime, drugs, sports, music, etc. It is difficult.
>
>
>
> *the conscious observer, refusing to give up the notion of free will,
> explains the lapse by rationalizations such as: God, luck, destiny,
> possession, halluciation etc.*
>
>
> As far as I understand, the program here acknowledge its ignorance. If, by
> being too much proud, he doesn't, then he make higher some catastrophe
> probabilities.
>
> *But isn't his problem of pride determined in some history, namely the one
> "I" experience?*
>
>
> Sure. It depends of our parents, education, etc. You can abstract such
> problems away, but this need works. It depend on the short and long pasts.
> We have inherited of million years of family trifles, we have kept some of
> our reptile instincts. But we can learn, for the better or the worse.
>
>
>
> *accept the intercession of supernatural powers (theology),*
>
>
>
> "it" could just accept it belongs to a collection of deep unknown
> histories, and many other unknown things, some even not nameable (and deadly
> if named). It can consolate itself by pointing on its *partial* control.
>
> *Not very consoling when entangled with the intense immediacy and
> sensitivity of one's ego.*
>
>
> Sure. Again here yoga and music and rest can help, but life can be
> difficult. Comp does not offer any consolation, except for those who like to
> search, it gives some light. But light is not necessarily consoling, it
> shows you the "monster" you did not expect sometimes.
>
>
>
> Note also that it is not really the program or the machine who thinks, but
> the people "vehiculated" trough that machine computation relatively to its
> most probable (and local) computational histories.
>
> *But I think as an individual, not as a group.*
>
>
> I agree, but I don't see the point.
>
>
> *All of which implies a schism between consciousness and one of the
> following: the program, the universe or itself.*
>
>
>
> Here I agree. Universal machine are born to experience such a schism. We
> can come back on this. In its purer form it is a consequence of
> incompleteness. All universal machine hides a mystery to themselves, and
> more the machine learn, more that mystery is bigger. (This is related to the
> gap between G and G*, for those who reminds previous explanations).
>
> *I find this most profound.*
>
>
>
> Nice. It is related with the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus'
> Platonism. All universal self-introspective machine should be able to
> discover that. It is what I like in comp, it preserves the mystery. It even
> cleans it from the ten thousand superstitions.
>
>
> Bruno
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon Dec 01 2008 - 12:57:47 PST