Re: Fw: Quantum accident survivor

From: Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 15:56:31 +0100

At 14:36 07/11/03 -0800, Hal Finney wrote:

snip


>Well, I do believe in continuity of consciousness, modulo the issues
>of measure. That is, I think some continuations would be more likely to
>be experienced than others. For example, if you started up 9 computers
>each running one copy of me (all running the same program so they stay
>in sync), and one computer running a different copy of me, my current
>theory is that I would expect to experience the first version with 90%
>probability.


Almost OK, but perhaps false if you put *the measure* on the (infinite)
computations going through those states. I mean, if the 9 computers
running one copy of you just stop (in some absolute way I ask you to
conceive for
the benefit of the argument), and if the one computer running the
different copy, instead of stopping, is multiplied eventually into many
self-distinguishable copies of you, then putting the measure on the
histories should
make you expect to experience (and memorized) the second version more probably.

It is the idea I like to summarize in the following diagram:

\ / | |
   \ / | |
     \/ = | |
      | | |
      | | |

That is, it is like a "future" bifurcation enhances your present measure.
It is why I think comp confirms Deutsch idea that QM branching is really
QM differentiation. What do you think? I mean, do you conceive that the
measure could be put only on the "maximal" possible computations?

Bruno


Bruno
Received on Sat Nov 08 2003 - 09:51:33 PST