Hi Norman,
I don't think it makes much difference whether time is real or not as far as
the game I have described is concerned. Each consecutive folder corresponds
to a time step, but you could as easily consider the whole ensemble of
folders and files as a mathematical object existing timelessly in Platonia;
similarly with the multiverse.
--Stathis Papaioannou
>Hi Saibal and Stathis,
> This scenario that you are discussing reminds me of this interview
>with Julian Barbour where he proposes that "time" is an illusion. If you
>agree or disagree with Barbour, I'd like to hear why.
>
>http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=183
>
>Norman Samish
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Saibal Mitra" <smitra.domain.name.hidden>
>To: "Stathis Papaioannou" <stathispapaioannou.domain.name.hidden>;
><everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
>Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 8:28 AM
>Subject: Re: objections to QTI
>
>Hi Stathis,
>I think that your example below was helpful to clarify the disagreement.
>You say that randomly sampling from all the files is not 'how real life
>works'. However, if you did randomly sample from all the files the result
>would not be different from the selective time ordered sampling you
>suggest, as long as the effect of dying (reducing the absolute measure) can
>be ignored. If I'm sampled by the computer, I'll have the recollection of
>having been a continuum of previous states, even though these states may
>not have been sampled for quite some while. I'll subjectively experience a
>linear time evolution. The order in which the computer chooses to generate
>me at various instances doesn't matter. There are a few reasons why I
>believe in the ''random sampling''. First of all, random sampling seems to
>be necessary to avoid the Doomsday Paradox. See this article written by
>Ken Olum:
>
>http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009081
>
>He explains here why you need the Self Indicating Assumption. The self
>indicating assumption amounts to adopting an absolute measure that is
>proportional to the number of observers. Another reason has to do with the
>notion of time. I don't believe that events that have happened or will
>happen are not real while events that are happening now are real. They have
>to be treated in the same way. The fact that I experience time evolution is
>a first person phenomena. Finally, QTI (which more or less follows if you
>adopt the time ordered picture), implies that for the most part of your
>life you should find yourself in an a-typical state (e.g. very old while
>almost everyone else is very young). -Saibal
>-------------------------------------------------
>
>----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
>Van: "Stathis Papaioannou" <stathispapaioannou.domain.name.hidden>
>Aan: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
>Verzonden: Monday, May 30, 2005 04:02 PM
>Onderwerp: objections to QTI
>
> > I thought the following analogy might clarify the point I was trying to
>make in recent posts to the "Many Pasts? Not according to QM" thread,
>addressing one objection to QTI. You are a player in the computer game
>called the Files of Life. In this game the computer generates
>consecutively numbered folders which each contain multiple text files,
>representing the multiple potential histories of the player at that time
>point. Each folder F_i contains N_i files. The first folder, F_0, contains
>N_0 files each describing possible events soon after your birth. You choose
>one of the files in this folder at random, and from this the computer
>generates the next folder, F_1, and places in it N files representing N
>possible continuations of the story. If you die going from F_0 to F_1, that
> file in F_1 corresponding to this event is blank, and blank files are
>deleted; so for the first folder N_0=N, but for the next one N_1<=N,
>allowing for deaths. The game then continues: you choose a file at random
>from F_1, from this file the computer generates the next folder F_2
>containing N_2 files, then you choose a file at random from F_2, and so on.
> It should be obvious that if the game is realistic, N_i should decrease
>with increasing i, due to death from accidents (fairly constant) + death
>from age related disease. The earlier folders will therefore on average
>contain many more files than the later folders. Now, it is argued that QTI
>is impossible because a randomly sampled observer moment from your life is
>very unlikely to be from a version of you who is 1000 years old, which has
>very low measure compared with a younger version. The equivalent argument
>for the Files of Life would be that since the earlier files are much more
>numerous than the later files, a randomly sampled file from your life (as
>created by playing the game) is very unlikely to represent a 1000 year old
>version of you, as compared with a younger version. This reasoning would
>be sound if the "random sampling" were done by mixing up all the files, or
>all the OM's, and pulling one out at random. But this is not how the game
>works and it is not how real life works. From the first person viewpoint,
>it doesn't matter how many files are in the folder because you only choose
>one at each step, spend the same time at each step, and are no more likely
>to find yourself at one step rather than another. As long as there is at
>least *one* file in the next folder, it is guaranteed that you will
>continue living. Similarly, as long as there is at least *one* OM in your
>future which represents a continuation from your present OM, you will
>continue living. --Stathis Papaioannou
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Received on Mon May 30 2005 - 21:33:06 PDT