Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow

From: George Levy <glevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:26:00 -0800

Le 14-déc.-05, à 01:34, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :

>> In the multiverse, only other people end up in dead ends. Although
>> from a third person perspective every entity in the multiverse could
>> be said to exist only transiently because at every point of an
>> entity's history we can say that there sprouts a dead end branch of
>> zero extent, from a first person perspective, these branches cannot
>> by definition ever be experienced.
>
If the laws of physics are contingent on the continuation of
consciousness, it is very well possible that a very large majority of
branches are very short and dead ends. In other words every nanoseconds
we suffer a thousand deaths through events which are perceived to be
unlikely due to the apparent stability of the physical laws, events
such as proton decay, beta capture, nuclear fusion due to nucleus
tunneling, etc...

Bruno Marchal wrote:

> I know you have solved the "only if" part of following exercise:
>
> (W, R) is reflexive iff (W,R) respects Bp -> p.
>
> I will come back on the "if" part later.
>
> Have you done this: showing that
>
> (W,R) is a "Papaioannou multiverse" iff (W,R) respects Dt
> -> D(Bf).
>
> Note that this question is a little bit academical. I have already
> explain how I will choose the modal logics. Actually I will not choose
> them, I will extract them from a conversation with the machine (and
> its "guardian angel"). This will leave no choice. It will happen that
> the formula
> Dt -> D(Bf) will appear in the discourse machine; indeed perhaps some
> of you know already that this is just the second incompleteness of
> Godel, once you interpret Bp by "the machine proves p", coded in some
> language the machine can use.


George
Received on Fri Dec 16 2005 - 14:34:27 PST