Re: Quantum Time Travel

From: <>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 14:15:31 EST

In a message dated 03/08/2000 1:47:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, writes:

> GSlevy writes:
> > Now this is really getting muddy! How do you define conscious? With the
> same
> > algorithm used to compute the number of angels on the head of a pin?
> That's not such an easy question, but all approaches must deal
> with it eventually. F'rinstance, if you believe your measure will be
> split if you have 2 conscious continuations, and not if there's just one.
> But actually in my case a conditional 'probability' distribution
> is fine, so for example if one could identify all human-like conscious
> computations, one could ask for the conditional effective probability
> distribution within that set. Choose any set of computations you want,
> really, but be careful to note the meaning of the chosen denominator. It
> will still be an objective, well defined feature of reality.
> Remember, too, that with a finite regularization in place the
> measures in question are finite integers. For decision making and so on,
> it's fine to work with a regularization, get the answer as a function of
> that, and then take the limit.

This is porcine effluent as well as bovine coprophilia, enough to give
abdominal discomfort to a coprophagic melanogaster.

This is definitely the weak point in you argument. You seem to assign the
"consciousness" property with the same abandon and arbitrariness of a voodoo
grand master. You have no OBJECTIVE way of assigning consciousness which is a
purely SUBJECTIVE property. In addition, your argument depends on identifying
all human-like conscious computations over the scope of the Plenitude, which
is ludicrous because 1) you don't know how to characterize "human-like"
consciousness, 2) the human-like property may not be relevent - there may be
other types, and 3) the size of the Plenitude makes any evaluation

Why not use the differential approach already in use in Physics for dealing
with infinite quantities such as vacuum energy. In Physics, the only energy
of relevence to the world we live in, is the difference between the actual
energy and the ground state. Should you decide to apply this concept to
"measure," all you'll have to concern yourself with is the difference between
the measure of two objects, or the relative value of their measures.

George Levy
Received on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 11:26:56 PST

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