Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow

From: George Levy <glevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 13:44:32 -0800

Hi Quentin, Stathis, Bruno

Quentin Anciaux wrote:

>Hi Georges,
>
>if you start from OMs as basic, then a branch is a set of OMs (only
>"consistent"/ordered set ?). Then it means a branch is unique. Some part of
>different branches could overlap, but as I don't understand what could be an
>absolute measure (meaning it never change and is fixed forever) between all
>branches, I don't see how to assert the measure of a branch... Also viewing
>from this point each 1st pov "lives" in its own branch (as a branch is an
>ordered set of OMs which in turn is associated to a 1st person).
>
>
>
Hi Quentin, Stathis, Bruno

It all depends how you see the plenitude, OMs and the branching. Is
consciousness like a traveller in a network of roads traversing the
plenitude, some roads branching some roads merging?

If yes then you could have several independent consciousness occupying
the same spot, or the same OM. Then their measure at that spot is their
sum. This approach is a third person point of view and it leads to the
concept of absolute measure.

If you see consiousness as the road itself, then measure is not
increased after a merge and does not decrease after a split. An OM is
just a point on the road. If the road turns unexpectedly to avoids an
obstacle (like quantum suicide or just plain death), then consiousness
will just move on into a direction which has a low 3-rd person
probability but unity first person probability. Viewing consciousness as
a network of roads is a first person point of view and it leads to the
concept of relative measure: Measure is always 1 where you are. From a
given point you may reach many points - Then measure increases with
respect to that point. Or reversibly, from many points you may reach
only one point. Then measure decreases.

Bruno writes:

>neither elimination of information, nor duplication of
information.

The crux of the matter is the concept of indistinguishability: whether
you consider two identical persons (OMs) occupying two identical
universes the same person (point on the road). It is clear that if you
consider the problem from the information angle, then duplication of
information does not increase the measure of that information. This
would support the relative interpretation of measure.

George



>Quentin
>
>
>Le Jeudi 8 Décembre 2005 22:21, George Levy a écrit :
>
>
>>Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Le 05-déc.-05, à 02:46, Saibal Mitra a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>>I still think that if you double everything and then annihilate only the
>>>>doubled person, the probability will be 1.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Actually I agree with this.
>>>
>>>
>>So far we have been talking about splitting universes and people. Let's
>>consider the case where two branches of the universe merge. In other
>>words, two different paths eventually happen to become identical - Of
>>course when this happens all their branching futures also become
>>identical. Would you say that such a double branch has double the
>>measure of a single branch even though the two branches are totally
>>indistinguishable? How can you possibly assert that any branch is
>>single, double, or a bundle composed of any number of identical
>>individual branches?
>>
>>George
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Fri Dec 09 2005 - 17:08:38 PST