Lee,
Your comments touch on important issues. Having read the article on your web
page I think we may basically agree but there are some differences. If you
look at it from a third person perspective, continuity of personal identity
over time is not only a delusion but a rather strange and inconsistent
delusion. Nevertheless, in the manner of delusions, realising this
intellectually does not make the delusion any less real at the "gut" level
of first person experience. Using my example where I am to be copied 10
times tomorrow and one copy tortured, I view this as a 10% chance that I
will be tortured tomorrow. You point out that this is not really correct:
there is a 100% chance that one copy of me will be tortured and a 0% chance
that the other 9 copies will be tortured, and all 10 copies have an equal
claim to being "me". This is the objective truth, but that doesn't make me
feel any differently about the matter. I still feel that there is a 10%
chance I will be tortured, and I still feel relieved that I am one of the
lucky copies when tomorrow comes and I am not tortured. There is an
inconsistency here in that today I identify with all the copies and tomorrow
I identify with only one, but so what? As you say, that is how our minds
have evolved.
If the experiences of the copy who is to be tortured will eventually be
merged with those of the non-tortured copies, that changes the situation,
because then it is *guaranteed* that I will eventually experience the
torture. I would worry similarly if I were to inherit the experiences of any
unrelated third person; the fact that it is other copies of me who are
suffering does not in itself make any selfish difference.
--Stathis Papaioannou
> > [Saibal writes]
> >
> > > The same is true here. It must follow from the laws of physics (which
> > > include the effects of simulations) that there are indeed many more
>copies
> > > of you at t2.
>
>Yes, we can say that there are more *copies*, i.e. more instantiations,
>and that these provide altogether more runtime at t2 (whatever X is).
>
> > In dealing with this type of problem you have to consider not only the
> > physics, which I'm sure you understand much better than I do, but also
>the
> > psychology of how the first person experience of being a unique
>individual
> > persisting through time is constructed from observer moment building
>blocks.
>
>Yes, nature would naturally construct creatures that looked at it
>this way. It would not do, for example, for a lion to have other
>than a single memory stream that described his current environment,
>and, to the degree it is useful, how he got there.
>
> > This is not as obvious as may first appear; specifically, it does not
>follow
> > in general that more copies/ greater measure at time t = more likely to
> > experience time t. The important thing to keep in mind is that each
> > individual experiences only one OM at a time.
>
>As I say it, one is *certain* to experience time t under your
>hypothesis. I consider whether one experiences time t to be
>an objective question: an examination of, say, the solar system
>during a certain interval (Jan 2006 to Dec 2006) reveals that
>either Stathis got runtime there or he didn't.
>
>But "only one OM at a time"? No, not if we are speaking of time
>in the objective sense: again, a piecemeal examination of a certain
>region of space could easily show that Stathis is running at two
>separate locations even at the same time t1. In fact, one possibility
>is that Stathis(X1, t1) has the same OM as Stathis(X2, t1).
>
> > If I consider the future, then there is a potential that I
> > could "become" any of the many OM's who consider me to be
> > in their past.
>
>I suggest that it is better to drop the language of probability
>here. It is *certain* that you will become all the Stathis's
>of 2006. You will be some of them in greater measure than others.
>
> > However, when I arrive at the future, and also when I remember
> > the past, I consider myself to be unique. All the other OM's
> > which from a third person perspective are other versions of
> > "me" (and this third person perspective includes me looking
> > at my potential futures) from my perspective are completely
> > separate people.
>
>I would say that they are separate instances, but not separate
>people. (A corollary from the usual belief that we are the same
>person from day to day even though our memories, obviously, are
>not identical.) You are the same person that you were yesterday,
>and tomorrow you will be the same person you are today, unless
>we do great violence to what we mean by "person". Derek Parfit
>in "Reasons and Persons" (1986) analyses this in great detail,
>along with Mike Perry in "Forever For All".
>
> > So if I am told that tomorrow I will be copied ten times and
> > one of these copies will be tortured, I am worried, because
> > that means there is a 1/10 chance I will be tortured.
>
>Good example, but I would say that you will be tortured with
>100% probability at some places, and tortured with 0% probability
>at nine others. The characterization of a piece of matter "Stathis
>is undergoing torture" is looked upon from the 3rd person as an
>entirely physically characterized objective process.
>
> > But when tomorrow comes and I am not the torture victim, I am
> > relieved, because it is someone else who is suffering, and I can
> > feel sorry for him in the way I feel sorry for suffering strangers.
>
>I suggest that this is not the correct, selfish way that you should
>look at it. It's just the same as in MWI when there "really is" a
>version of you who saw the other outcome. He's you. I have a so-called
>proof of this proposition at http://www.leecorbin.com/dupproof.html
>
> > What this means is that if you trace an individual's history from his
>birth
> > to his ultimate demise (which may never come, if QTI is correct), at
>each
> > time point he is associated with only *one* OM.
>
>Perhaps my insistence wherever possible of describing what is
>happening in our universe from the 3rd person is responsible
>for our different ways of talking.
>
> > Two or more individuals may share two or more OM's at some point
> > in their life, for example when a duplication occurs, but from
> > the point of view of each of them, they still only experience one
> > OM at a time for their entire life history. Two OM's may
> > also "combine" in one of two ways: either a third OM exists with the
>content
> > of the other two, or they do not really combine but a later OM has the
> > memory of having been both in the past. The one OM per time point for
>each
> > individual rule is maintained.
> >
> > The conclusion from the above is that the absolute measure of an
>individual
> > at any time point, from that individual's point of view, is unity. When
> > looking into the future, the other copies in the multiverse do matter,
>but
> > in this case it is the relative measure of different outcomes rather
>than
> > the absolute measure which is important. Once the future becomes
>present,
> > the other copies from the first person perspective are just other
>people.
>
>Well, we aren't yet used to having more than one of us around
>at any given time. Perhaps our gut feelings on this issue will
>change when the technology allows duplicates. I, for example,
>would never dream of regarding my duplicate as another person.
>He's me, just running at a different location. (Just as, for
>example, my future and past selves are also me, just running
>at different times.)
>
>Lee
>
_________________________________________________________________
Meet 1000s of Aussie singles today at Lavalife!
http://lavalife9.ninemsn.com.au/
Received on Thu Jun 02 2005 - 20:38:10 PDT