Re: more torture

From: Saibal Mitra <smitra.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 17:00:15 +0200

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <stathispapaioannou.domain.name.hidden>
To: <smitra.domain.name.hidden>; <everything-list.domain.name.hidden.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 05:26 PM
Subject: Re: more torture


>
> > > Saibal Mitra writes:
> > >
> > > >Because no such thing as free will exists one has to consider three
> > > >different universes in which the three different choices are made.
The
> > > >three
> > > >universes will have comparable measures. The antropic factor of
10^100
> >will
> > > >then dominate and will cause the observer to find himself having made
> > > >choice
> > > >b) as one of the 10^100 copies in the minute without torture.
> > >
> > > But what will happen to the observer when the minute is up?
> > >
> > > --Stathis
> >
> >
> >Pretending that these three universes are all that exists, what will
happen
> >is that the OM will find himself being another one of the 10^100 copies.
> >The
> >copy survives with memory loss.
> >
> >
> >Saibal
>
> In what sense can the copy (or anything) become another copy with memory
> loss? It is almost as if you are postulating a soul, which flies from one
> body to another, and somehow contains the original person's identity so
that
> it survives memory loss. What is required for an observer moment OM_1 at
> time t1 to "become" the next observer moment at time t2 is that at least
one
> successor OM exist with time stamp t2, a belief that he is the same person
> as OM_1, and memories of OM_1 up to time t2. If several such OM's exist
> {OM_2.1, OM_2.2, OM_2.3...} then either one may be the successor, with
> probability determined by the measure of OM_2.n relative to the measure of
> the whole set. Amazingly, being completely swamped with other OM's of
> various types and vintages, more or less closely related to OM_1, makes
> absolutely no difference to the process, because the OM's don't need to
> "find" each other and lock arms, all they need to do is *exist*, anywhere
in
> the multiverse, related in the way I have described. This is somewhat
> analogous to the fact that the integer 56 is always followed by the
integer
> 57, even though there are lots and lots of other integers everywhere
amongst
> which these two could get lost.
>
> --Stathsi Papaioannou


I'm certainly not postulating a soul. All I'm saying is that all OMs are
real and there is no preference for one over another. Each OM will feel that
he is the successor of a previous one. If an OM checks if he is a typical
creature in the universe, he will find with large probability that this is
indeed the case.

Your proposal about time evolution ignores memory loss. How to assign
probabilities to OM_2.1, OM_2.2, etc. if they don't remember everything
about OM_1? Real people's memories are not perfect. So, you would have to
admit memory loss to make your proposal work in practice. And unless you
believe that QTI makes you immune from Alzheimer's you would have to admit
an arbitrary large amount of memory loss.


So, to me the notion of a successor doesn't make sense in general. You can
always define a set of successors of OM_1 irrespective of measure by saying
that members of that set remember being OM_1. But then there also exists
successors of me with perfect memory but with very small measures. I could
e.g. arise accidentally in a simulation performed by aliens and that
simulation could be a more perfect continuation (memory wise) of my present
OM.



These considerations have led me to believe that one should abandon any
fundamental idea of successors altogether. OMs just exist and each OM has a
memory of ''previous'' experiences. So, each OM remembers being another OM.
There exists a probability distribution over the set of all OMs which is
fixed by the laws of physics. OMs thus ''always'' exist and this is a form
of immortality. In your example of 10^100 copies almost all OMs are one of
these copies. What happens to such an OM when the minute is up? Nothing
really happens. All the OMs are ''static'' mathematical entities.


Saibal
Received on Wed Jun 15 2005 - 11:04:56 PDT