Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow

From: Saibal Mitra <smitra.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 15:14:21 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brent Meeker" <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>
To: "Saibal Mitra" <smitra.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 03:06 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow


> Saibal Mitra wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Brent Meeker" <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>
> > To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
> > Cc: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
> > Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 07:41 PM
> > Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
> >
> >
> >
> >>Saibal Mitra wrote:
> >>
> >>>----- Original Message -----
> >>>From: "Jonathan Colvin" <jcolvin.domain.name.hidden>
> >>>To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
> >>>Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 05:49 AM
> >>>Subject: RE: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Saibal wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>The answer must be a) because (and here I disagree with
> >>>>>Jesse), all that exists is an ensemble of isolated observer
> >>>>>moments. The future, the past, alternative histories, etc.
> >>>>>they all exist in a symmetrical way. It don't see how some
> >>>>>states can be more ''real'' than other states. Of course, the
> >>>>>universe we experience seems to be real to us while
> >>>>>alternative universes, or past or future states of this
> >>>>>universe are not being experienced by us.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>So, you must think of yourself at any time as being randomly
> >>>>>sampled from the set of all possible observer moments.
> >>>>
> >>>><delurk>
> >>>>
> >>>>I'm not sure how this works. Suppose I consider my state now at time
<N>
> >>>
> >>>as
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>a random sample of all observer moments. Now, after having typed this
> >>>>sentence, I consider my state at time <N + 4 seconds>. Is this also a
> >>>
> >>>random
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>sample on all observer moments? I can do the same at now <N+10>, and
> >>>
> >>>so-on.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>It seems very unlikely that 3 random samples would coincide so
closely.
> >
> > So
> >
> >>>>in what sense are these states randomly sampled?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It's a bit like symmetry breaking. You have an ensemble of all possible
> >>>observer moment, but each observer moment can only experience its own
> >
> > state.
> >
> >>>So, the OM samples itself.
> >>>
> >>>There exists an observer moment representing you at N seconds, at N + 4
> >>>seconds and at all possible other states. They all ''just exist'' in
the
> >>>plenitude, as Stathis wrote. The OM representing you at N + 4 has the
> >>>memory of being the OM at N.
> >>
> >>This I find confusing. How is there memory associated with an obserever
> >
> > moment?
> >
> >> Is it equivocation on "memory"? As an experience, remembering
something
> >
> > takes
> >
> >>much longer than what I would call "a moment". It may involve a
sequence
> >>images, words, and emotions. Of course in a materialist model of the
> >
> > world the
> >
> >>memories are coded in the physical configuration of your brain, even
when
> >
> > not
> >
> >>being experienced; but an analysis that takes OM's as fundamental can't
> >
> > refer to
> >
> >>that kind of memories.
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, what really matters is that the laws of physics define a
probability
> > distribution over OMs. So, there is no problem thinking of yourself as
being
> > sampled randomly from that probability distribution. The length of an OM
> > can be taken to be zero. Even if recalling something takes time, at any
time
> > you are at a certain point in that process. There exists an OM that
recalls
> > going through that sequence, but that is also at a specific moment in
time.
>
> But you're assuming laws of physics and a physical basis for
consciousness. I
> thought the idea was to take conscious moments as basic. I'm fine with
taking
> physics as basic - but then what's the point of talking about observer
moments;
> conscious observations are then some kind of emergent phenomena and
they're
> connected by physical causation.
>


Yes, but it's a fact that there exists laws of physics. I am of the opinion
that what really exists is an ensemble of algorithms and that the laws of
physics is a consequence of this. Whatever your starting point, you'll end
up with an absolute measure over the set of all OMs.
Received on Sat Dec 03 2005 - 09:16:18 PST