- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: <GSLevy.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 02:06:22 EST

In a message dated 03/27/2000 12:11:42 PM Pacific Standard Time,

jackmallah.domain.name.hidden writes:

*> OK. The advantages of my approach are
*

*>
*

*> 1) It does not require any special definition of identity, while your
*

*> approach seems to give one a fundamental role.
*

*>
*

*> 2) In principle, it allows all kinds of (statistical) retrodictions.
*

*> Your approach seems to only allow a few kinds.
*

*>
*

*> 3) It is unclear how you deal with time based on your previous and
*

*> current statements. In my approach it is clear that each observer-moment
*

has

*> some measure, and a set of related observer moments can be used for a
*

'person'

*> if desired, so that the person's total measure is the sum of that of his
*

*> constituent observer-moments. This clearly rules out QTI.
*

*>
*

*> 4) In the MWI of QM the measure of an observer in a 'branch' is defined.
*

*> This is proportional to
*

*> dM(total)/ d tau ~ dt * clock speed
*

*> in my approach.
*

*> In your approach it must be divided by an identity-dependent factor
*

*> resulting in possible near-zombies.
*

*>
*

*>
*

1) True. I do require definition of identity or more precisely of the self.

However this requirement is absolutely trivial.

a) First, no matter how the self is defined, (i.e., what boundaries you draw

around it) the normalized measure for the self is always unity.

Normalized Measure = M(Self) / M(Self)

Which is nice and very egalitarian. We all have the same measure.

b) Second, the assumption of the self is absolutely essential no matter what

method (yours or mine) is used. We MUST start with the assumption "I think."

Otherwise it's not even worth thinking about nature or anything.

2) I don't understand. Maybe you should come up with an example.

3) This paragraph involves at least three concepts: persons, measure and

time.

I assume an infinite number of observer-moments in some infinitely

dimensional state space in the plenitude. Each observer moment is a point in

that space logically connected to many (possibly an infinite number of) other

observer-moments. The logical connections are anthropically constrained to

insure the existence of the rational conscious experience. We could define a

person as a set of observer-moment points logically linked together. Trying

to define the measure of a person is like trying to find how many points

there are in a given region of space. The answer: an infinite number. You

could compare two regions and say that one region is larger than another.

However, from the transfinite point of view, both regions contain the same

cardinality of points.

Time is an illusion brought about by the anthropically constrained links

between the observer-moments.

This approach is definitely not "classical MWI."

4) I don't understand. Are you trying to calculate the output measure in a

branch, given the total input measure? What are tau and t? I can't comment on

zombies.

With my method, you must distinguish between first person and third person

observations. Third person observations match classical physics. First person

observations do not. White rabbits do appear especially if they are essential

in maintaining the existence of the observer. In our case, for example, the

Big Bang which is definitely a first person event.

Received on Tue Mar 28 2000 - 23:10:22 PST

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 02:06:22 EST

In a message dated 03/27/2000 12:11:42 PM Pacific Standard Time,

jackmallah.domain.name.hidden writes:

has

'person'

1) True. I do require definition of identity or more precisely of the self.

However this requirement is absolutely trivial.

a) First, no matter how the self is defined, (i.e., what boundaries you draw

around it) the normalized measure for the self is always unity.

Normalized Measure = M(Self) / M(Self)

Which is nice and very egalitarian. We all have the same measure.

b) Second, the assumption of the self is absolutely essential no matter what

method (yours or mine) is used. We MUST start with the assumption "I think."

Otherwise it's not even worth thinking about nature or anything.

2) I don't understand. Maybe you should come up with an example.

3) This paragraph involves at least three concepts: persons, measure and

time.

I assume an infinite number of observer-moments in some infinitely

dimensional state space in the plenitude. Each observer moment is a point in

that space logically connected to many (possibly an infinite number of) other

observer-moments. The logical connections are anthropically constrained to

insure the existence of the rational conscious experience. We could define a

person as a set of observer-moment points logically linked together. Trying

to define the measure of a person is like trying to find how many points

there are in a given region of space. The answer: an infinite number. You

could compare two regions and say that one region is larger than another.

However, from the transfinite point of view, both regions contain the same

cardinality of points.

Time is an illusion brought about by the anthropically constrained links

between the observer-moments.

This approach is definitely not "classical MWI."

4) I don't understand. Are you trying to calculate the output measure in a

branch, given the total input measure? What are tau and t? I can't comment on

zombies.

With my method, you must distinguish between first person and third person

observations. Third person observations match classical physics. First person

observations do not. White rabbits do appear especially if they are essential

in maintaining the existence of the observer. In our case, for example, the

Big Bang which is definitely a first person event.

Received on Tue Mar 28 2000 - 23:10:22 PST

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