Hi Saibal,
> Well, even if you can derive the laws of physics as we know them (in
> some
> approximation), you still can't do an experiment to prove that quantum
> suicide works.
I think you are completely right. It is even my main motivation for
calling "theology" the modal logic G* (which contains all the
propositional truth about the machine including those the machines
cannot prove).
> It can only be proven to the experimentor himself.
Actually I am not even sure of that, although the experimentor can in a
1-person view, believes he got evidences (but no proof). Actually I
have no proof that I am alive.
> This means
> that the absolute measure cannot be ruled out experimentally.
OK. But how would you verify the absolute measure. Do you think you can
derive the physical laws from it (without any physicalist "prior", and
by being coherent with the 1-3 distinction)?
"See" you tomorrow,
Bruno
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruno Marchal" <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
> To: "Saibal Mitra" <smitra.domain.name.hidden>
> Cc: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 01:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
>
>
>>
>> Le 15-déc.-05, à 03:04, Saibal Mitra a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>
>>> To me it seems that the notion of ''successor'' has to break down at
>>> cases
>>> where the observer can die. The Tookies that are the most similar to
>>> the
>>> Tookie who got executed are the ones who got clemency. There is no
>>> objective
>>> reason why these Tookies should be excluded as ''successors''. They
>>> miss the
>>> part of their memories about things that happened after clemency was
>>> denied.
>>> Instead of those memories they have other memories. We forget things
>>> all the
>>> time. Sometimes we remember things that didn't really happen. So, we
>>> allow
>>> for information loss anyway. My point is then that we should forget
>>> about
>>> all of the information contained in the OM and just sample from the
>>> entire
>>> set of OMs.
>>>
>>> The notion of a ''successor'' is not a fundamental notion at all. You
>>> can
>>> define it any way you like.
>>
>>
>> ?
>>
>>
>>
>>> It will not lead to any conflict with any
>>> experiments you can think of.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Counterexamples will appear if I succeed to explain more of the
>> conversation with the lobian machines.
>>
>> But just with the Kripke semantics we have a base to doubt what you
>> are
>> saying here. Indeed, it is the relation of accessibility between OMs
>> which determine completely the invariant laws pertaining in all OMs.
>> For example, if the multiverse is reflexive the Bp -> p is true in all
>> OMs (that is, Bp -> p is invariant for any walk in the multiverse). If
>> the mutliverse is "terminal" of "papaioannou-like) then Dt -> ~BDt is
>> a law. In Kripke structure the accessibility relation determined the
>> invariant laws.
>> later, the modal logic is given by the machine interview, and from
>> that, we will determine the structure of the multiverse, including the
>> "observable" one.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>
>
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Fri Dec 16 2005 - 11:18:13 PST