Re: [Fwd: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality]

From: danny mayes <dmayes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 02:54:12 -0400

I read "Why Occam's Razor" tonight after posting my last response
(despite having a Federal court brief begging for attention). I didn't
have time to wade through the technical parts very thoroughly, but in
general I found it a very good summary of many of the topics we have
been frequently discussing on this list.

I also re-read (skimmed) Nick Bostrom's "are you living in a simulation"
paper tonight, and it occurs to me if you add his argument to MWI, you
get the inevitable conclusion that we are simulated, which I guess is
actually a similar concept to Marchal (though Marchal goes much further
in attempting to derive QM, etc. from this). One difference being that
Marchal argues the UTM does not need to actually exist physically, but
as you state in your paper if I read/remember correctly, the UTM would
exist both as mathematical and physical structure.

This then leads back to questions about the differences between the
mathematical and physical structure; if any. With consideration that
any given area of the multiverse is inevitably and eternally being
simulated by another area, I thereby come full circle and see what
Marchal is saying - there is no need to even consider what we refer to
as the physical. I wonder if, considering Godel, we are forever doomed
to walk around in circles like this....

Danny Mayes



many seem to bend over backwards to say you do not actually have to have
the UTM exist physically


Russell Standish wrote:

>On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 12:40:10AM -0400, danny mayes wrote:
>
>
>>Russell,
>>
>>When I stated in the original reply that pulling information out of
>>other worlds in the MWI context was prohibited by physics, I was
>>referring to information about those universes. As I stated, obviously
>>you can create a superposition to utilize processing power in other
>>universes, but you can't take from this information about the
>>universes/worlds you are utilizing. Therefore, the original concept of
>>people "seeing" into other universes seems to be prohibited by the laws
>>of physics.
>>
>>As I understand it, the mathematics of Hilbert space prohibits
>>inter-world communications because the attempt to remove information
>>from Hilbert space causes decoherence, destroying reversibility. "Any
>>Hilbert space accessible from more than one world line must be a
>>timeless place, in which we can leave no permanent mark." - Colin Bruce
>>
>>
>
>Part of the problem is in assuming that all quantum worlds are
>disjoint from each other, when it is clear this is not the case. Take
>an example Multiverse that has one spin 1/2 particle in it. Clearly,
>it consists of two worlds, one which has spin +1/2\hbar, the other
>with spin -1/2\hbar in the z-direction. However, this Multiverse also
>has another two worlds in it, one with spin +1/2\hbar and one with
>-1/2\hbar, however this time in the x-direction. And so on. All these
>worlds exist. By choosing to measure the particle in the x-direction,
>I get information from both of the "+1/2-" and "-1/2 in the
>z-direction" worlds, hence there is a form of information flow between
>worlds.
>
>Nevertheless, there is, as you say, no information flow between
>decohered worlds.
>
>
>
>>Also, I'm interested in your TIME hypothesis. Could you refer me to a
>>source for information, or summarize for me?
>>
>>
>>
>
>I initially raised it my paper "Why Occam's Razor", and have discussed
>it a few times on the everything list. Try doing a search on
>time+russell+standish on the everything list archive.
>
>As a summary, it states that an observer must experience a time
>dimension, within which e can process information, and bring disparate
>facts together for comparison. About the only requirement of this time
>object is that it must have topological dimension at least 1. I
>usually assume that it is at least a "time scale" - see the Nohner and
>Peterson's book:
>
>.domain.name.hidden{Bohner-Peterson01,
> author = {Martin Bohner and Allan Peterson},
> title = {Dynamic Equations on Time Scales},
> publisher = {Birkh\"auser},
> year = 2001,
> address = {Boston}
>}
>
>Cheers
>
>
>
>
>>Danny Mayes
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Thu May 12 2005 - 02:56:35 PDT