Re: Quantum Time Travel

From: <>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 17:17:02 EDT

In a message dated 04/17/2000 11:29:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time, writes:

> --- wrote:
> > writes:
> >> wrote:
> > > > a) First, no matter how the self is defined,
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Then why don't people similar to us, but who
> > > see white rabbits, have the same measure?
> >
> > You are correct! But only from the third person
> > point of view. I define
> > "third person point of view" as a perspective which
> > does not affect the survival of the observer!
> You still haven't defined 'the observer'.

I did. "I think" is both faith and fact - assumption and experimentally data.
My approach requires one single assumption:

1) I am a conscious observer. (I "think").

This is the basis for the relativistic view of the world and the existence of
other observers and of the world follows from this basic assumption.

I think therefore I am (By definition)
I am therefore the world is (Anthropy)
The world is therefore the Plenitude is (Acausality: Unless there is a reason
for something NOT to exist then it does)
The world is therefore other observers like myself are. (Acausality)

Come to think of it YOU haven't defined observer DEPENDENTLY of your basic
objective absolute world view.

The (your) objective absolute view of the world requires three assumptions:
1) There is an absolute objective world
2) This world gives rise to conscious observers
3) I am one of the conscious observers.

Occam would certanly not vote for your approach

> > There are two kinds of
> > white rabbits. The rational
> > ones which I shall discuss now, and the irrational
> > ones which I shall discuss
> > in the next section. Different people "similar to
> > us" do see rational white
> > rabbits. They win the lottery, are hit by lightning
> > and sometimes even
> > receive a meteorite on the head. The number of these
> > people, however is very
> > small. Their measure RELATIVE TO AN UNINVOLVED
> > OBSERVER is very low. For very
> > very very few in the whole observable universe, the
> > second law of
> > thermodynamics may even revert temporarily.
> >
> > However, their own measure RELATIVE TO THEMSELVES is
> > unity.
> Just one problem with that: it doesn't make any
> damn sense. Measure is measure.

Yes it doesn't make any sense if you refuse to look at it from the first
person point of view! We are going in circles.

> On the other hand if
> by "measure relative to themselves" you mean some
> measure *ratio*, the important thing to realize is
> that measure ratios don't play the role of measure
> (foe effective probabilities) unless the denominator
> is the same fixed constant for all.

You seem to be suffering from the same hardening of the brain arteries as
those who embraced Ether and refused to accept the fact that motion can be
> > Furthermore, because of anthropic considerations,
> > rationality of the mind requires a rational physical
> > environment. Hence, if someone exists he must be
> > able to make sense of his surrounding and observe
> > the cause for his own existence. So irrational White
> > Rabbits cannot be observed. [...]
> > Hence any conscious entity must be capable of
> > observing the reason for his
> > own origin, Darwinian or Design
> That does not follow. Given the physical laws we
> know, there is no reason a being can't come into
> existance just due to thermodynamic or quantum
> 'random' events. It's just not very common, to say
> the least.

Yep, it's not very common to say the least. According to some theories, the
Big Bang is just a quantum fluctuation. Not very common to say the least. How
do we explain it? Classical QT just says it happened - no cause. The AUH says
it must happen just because everything happens.

Third person point of view exclude White Rabbits. First person point of view
demand them! Look at all the billions of anthropic coincidences that occured
to make YOUR life possible, starting with the Big Bang and ending with that
particular sperm fertilizing that particular egg to make Jacques Mallah!

As I mentionned before, White Rabbits could be rational (rare coincidences
explainable by physical laws) such as one sperm meeting one egg, or
irrational such as quantum fluctuations, such as the Big Bang.

Our universe is 99.99999...999 percent rational. (If it was 100% rational it
would be deterministic, which it is not). If our universe was any more
irrational, the stable physical substrate required for conscious life would
not exist and we would not be around (Anthropy). I am also guessing that
there is no need for the world to be more rational than it is. Consciousness
can sustain (maybe require) a small amount of irrationality in the physical

> > I repeat, from the third person point of view,
> > everyone does not have the
> > same measure. From the first person point of view,
> > our own measure is unity.
> Again with this 'POV' stuff. That's the best you
> can do, huh? I have explained countless times that
> the total measure of some set of observer-moments is
> the sum of the measures of the constituent
> observer-moments. If you want to take some such set
> and call it a 'self', that's your business.
> But the problem comes when you deny the results of
> calculations, based on your ideology, that show that
> (for example) when a measure distribution decays
> exponentially with time, an observation at an early
> time is more effectively probable than one at a later
> time. You insist, with zero justification, that
> because the set you want to designate as 'self'
> contains a long time tail, there is no decrease in
> measure with time. Then you try to cloak that BS with
> mumbo jumbo about '1st vs. 3rd person POVs'.

Again your hardening of your brain arteries. Let me give you an analogy with
motion: When you decelerate, your speed may decrease with respect to an
earth-bound observer. But your speed relative to yourself is always zero.
There is nothing inconsistent about this.

> > > > 3)
> > > I already explained this to you: cardinality
> > isn't the issue. Just take a limit in the right
> way.
> >
> > I know, I know. You just take the limit. As if it
> > was that simple. It's not!
> > Let me give you an example.
> > [snip]

Gosh, "snip" is not an answer.

> > Taking the sum of an infinite set depends on the way
> > the element of that set are SEQUENCED!
> >
> > I think that when infinite sets are involved, the
> > concept of limit must be applied very carefully.
> No kidding. Any high school kid is supposed to
> know that. What's your point? As I said, take it *in
> the right way*. Don't know the right way? Use
> Occam's razor to guess Nature's preference. In the TM
> UD case, N->inf seems fine.
I am not a good enough mathematician to bridge the gaps between Limit Theory,
Infinite Sets and MWI. However, my point is that if you are going to take a
limit, implicit in the process is the ordering of your terms. If the ordering
is defined by the context of your world (embedded in an infinite Plenitude),
then the result obtained by the limiting process may be controlled by
anthropic considerations.

In a message dated 04/20/2000 12:11:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, writes:

> On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 02:06:22AM -0500, wrote:
> > I assume an infinite number of observer-moments in some infinitely
> > dimensional state space in the plenitude. Each observer moment is a
> in
> > that space logically connected to many (possibly an infinite number of)
> other
> > observer-moments. The logical connections are anthropically constrained
> > insure the existence of the rational conscious experience. We could
> 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.
> > could compare two regions and say that one region is larger than
> > However, from the transfinite point of view, both regions contain the
> > 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."
> Please clarify your approach for me. Where do these logical connections
> come from? I.e., what causes or implies or governs them? What does it
> mean that they are anthropically constrained to ensure (only?) rational
> conscious experience? Does it mean that if you follow a series of links
> you are guaranteed to obtain a rational conscious experience? Why?
> After some more thought I am going to guess that your approach is to
> start out with the points, and then for any series of points that
> constitute a rational conscious experience, draw links between them. Is
> this correct? If so what determines which series of points constitute a
> rational conscious experience and which ones don't?
These are difficult questions going to the root of consciousness. The logical
links are just imaginary. I use them to explain how consciousness flows from
point to point. You are on the right track when you say that we can "start
out with the points, and then for any series of points that constitute a
rational conscious experience, draw links between them."

But the reverse is also true. Rational thoughts implies logical links between
the points and logical links implies possible rational thoughts.

So I would rephrase your statement as follows:
"Any series of logically connected points constitute a rational conscious
experience and any rational conscious experience consists of logically
connected points.."
Another way of saying it is that the HISTORY OF ALL CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE
CONSTITUTE A LOCUS of logically connected points in the Plenitude. A
particular conscious experience is a path along this locus. Time is an
illusion caused by the connectivity from conscious point to conscious point.
Anthropy is a filter imposed by our consciousness on our perspective of the
Plenitude. The logical property of the mind constrains and causes the
determinism of the world. I think, therefore I am, therefore the world is.

As to what is the real nature of logic itself....I have no idea.

Have a good weekend

George Levy
Received on Fri Apr 21 2000 - 14:22:21 PDT

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