When is this?

[david.nyman]

Forgive me in advance if this has been covered adequately before in
the list, but the following occurs to me with respect to 'Bostrom'
style assessments of where I should expect my 'current' OM to be
situated with respect to the total population of OMs in which I exist.

Presumably, I should expect that my current awareness of my 'life-
stage' will be characteristic of those OMs with the highest
'measure' (a concept upon which I think I have at least a vague grasp
in this context).  Ostensibly, taking into account the various points
at which I die off, one would expect that the highest such measure
would be characteristic of a later life-stage rather than an earlier,
taken across all branches in which I exist. Indeed, I don't recall
ever having been any older!

However, assuming the co-existence of all OMs (i.e. where 'time
doesn't actually 'unfold'), should I expect ever to find myself
conscious of an OM of lower measure?  What does this say about my
ostensibly conscious past experiences (i.e. those putatively
representing OMs of lower measure)?  Should I conclude that 'from here
on' in terms of life-stage my survivors are on average becoming rarer
and that consequently on the basis of measure I shouldn't expect to
experience getting any older?  In this case, does it further imply
that the experience of quantum immortality would make sense only in
terms of some sort of 'real' time-line along which I could expect to
actually experience an extended 'tail' of surviving conscious moments
regardless of their measure?

I'm definitely confused.

David
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[John Mikes]

David,

(after having missed your posts for a long time...)

 

I wonder if my response will appear on the list, because lately some did not (maybe I have mailing-list troubles, maybe some screener finds my ideas not worthy) so with good hopes:

 

I had long standing discussions in the early 90s on some (more psych/philosophy oriented) lists about ob/sub-jective. [There even was an opinion saying "subj" is related to a (any) "SUBJECT" (=topic) while "obj." would be object-oriented(?).] My position was (and I made it stick after almost 2 years of fierce discussions) that what is usually called and valued, as:

objective reality(!) (in the sense of aiming at something tangible - even only ideationally tangible) is our own  subjective  virtuality

 (as included into MY OWN mindset) of the mind-adjusted explanation of an information (phenomenon? relation?) that reached us. You may imagine the initial contradictory burst that was arisen initially. I did not give up, the opponents ran out of argumentation.

 

OMs I can translate into my vocabulary, but Q-immortality and teleport ideas I cannot, I ask what is the factor effecting (doing) all that? Even: initiating them? I don't except 'ideational' self-moving of physically termed items. Nor 'physicality' in any processes outside our "physical" box.

 

What I am stratled by is the (higher? or) "lower" measures of OM. I use such distinctions in a context-related meaning and the context is our (physical? i.e. figmentous) worldview. Your setup seems to be "above"(<G>) such. (=Outside this box).

 

With 'immortality' I connect our thinking in time, the ordinating relation for this universe and our thinking within, (for)'ever' is not a timely term, so "eternity" may be atemporal. -  Q or not.

 

Regards

 

John Mikes

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:31 PM, David Nyman <david.nyman@...> wrote:

Forgive me in advance if this has been covered adequately before in
the list, but the following occurs to me with respect to 'Bostrom'
style assessments of where I should expect my 'current' OM to be
situated with respect to the total population of OMs in which I exist.

Presumably, I should expect that my current awareness of my 'life-
stage' will be characteristic of those OMs with the highest
'measure' (a concept upon which I think I have at least a vague grasp
in this context).  Ostensibly, taking into account the various points
at which I die off, one would expect that the highest such measure
would be characteristic of a later life-stage rather than an earlier,
taken across all branches in which I exist. Indeed, I don't recall
ever having been any older!

However, assuming the co-existence of all OMs (i.e. where 'time
doesn't actually 'unfold'), should I expect ever to find myself
conscious of an OM of lower measure?  What does this say about my
ostensibly conscious past experiences (i.e. those putatively
representing OMs of lower measure)?  Should I conclude that 'from here
on' in terms of life-stage my survivors are on average becoming rarer
and that consequently on the basis of measure I shouldn't expect to
experience getting any older?  In this case, does it further imply
that the experience of quantum immortality would make sense only in
terms of some sort of 'real' time-line along which I could expect to
actually experience an extended 'tail' of surviving conscious moments
regardless of their measure?

I'm definitely confused.

David

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Stathis Papaioannou-2]

2009/6/16 David Nyman <david.nyman@...>:

>
> Forgive me in advance if this has been covered adequately before in
> the list, but the following occurs to me with respect to 'Bostrom'
> style assessments of where I should expect my 'current' OM to be
> situated with respect to the total population of OMs in which I exist.
>
> Presumably, I should expect that my current awareness of my 'life-
> stage' will be characteristic of those OMs with the highest
> 'measure' (a concept upon which I think I have at least a vague grasp
> in this context).  Ostensibly, taking into account the various points
> at which I die off, one would expect that the highest such measure
> would be characteristic of a later life-stage rather than an earlier,
> taken across all branches in which I exist. Indeed, I don't recall
> ever having been any older!
>
> However, assuming the co-existence of all OMs (i.e. where 'time
> doesn't actually 'unfold'), should I expect ever to find myself
> conscious of an OM of lower measure?  What does this say about my
> ostensibly conscious past experiences (i.e. those putatively
> representing OMs of lower measure)?  Should I conclude that 'from here
> on' in terms of life-stage my survivors are on average becoming rarer
> and that consequently on the basis of measure I shouldn't expect to
> experience getting any older?  In this case, does it further imply
> that the experience of quantum immortality would make sense only in
> terms of some sort of 'real' time-line along which I could expect to
> actually experience an extended 'tail' of surviving conscious moments
> regardless of their measure?

It depends on how you do the sampling. If you consider yourself an
undifferentiated soul, contemplating what sort of OM you are going to
become, then you will most likely find yourself an OM of high measure.
But this is not how the sampling happens. What happens is that you are
*already* an OM - obviously, if you are able to think about these
things at all. Specifically, you are a human OM of a particular age in
the 21st century on Earth. When you contemplate your future, finding
yourself a five year old child, or a Chinese peasant, or an insect
creature on a planet orbiting Sirius are not options that are open to
you, *given* where you are now, even though these OM's may be of high
measure. The only OM's you can experience are those in which your
present OM is in the subjective past.


--
Stathis Papaioannou

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Brent Meeker-2]

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

> 2009/6/16 David Nyman <david.nyman@...>:
>> Forgive me in advance if this has been covered adequately before in
>> the list, but the following occurs to me with respect to 'Bostrom'
>> style assessments of where I should expect my 'current' OM to be
>> situated with respect to the total population of OMs in which I exist.
>>
>> Presumably, I should expect that my current awareness of my 'life-
>> stage' will be characteristic of those OMs with the highest
>> 'measure' (a concept upon which I think I have at least a vague grasp
>> in this context).  Ostensibly, taking into account the various points
>> at which I die off, one would expect that the highest such measure
>> would be characteristic of a later life-stage rather than an earlier,
>> taken across all branches in which I exist. Indeed, I don't recall
>> ever having been any older!
>>
>> However, assuming the co-existence of all OMs (i.e. where 'time
>> doesn't actually 'unfold'), should I expect ever to find myself
>> conscious of an OM of lower measure?  What does this say about my
>> ostensibly conscious past experiences (i.e. those putatively
>> representing OMs of lower measure)?  Should I conclude that 'from here
>> on' in terms of life-stage my survivors are on average becoming rarer
>> and that consequently on the basis of measure I shouldn't expect to
>> experience getting any older?  In this case, does it further imply
>> that the experience of quantum immortality would make sense only in
>> terms of some sort of 'real' time-line along which I could expect to
>> actually experience an extended 'tail' of surviving conscious moments
>> regardless of their measure?
>
> It depends on how you do the sampling. If you consider yourself an
> undifferentiated soul, contemplating what sort of OM you are going to
> become, then you will most likely find yourself an OM of high measure.
> But this is not how the sampling happens. What happens is that you are
> *already* an OM - obviously, if you are able to think about these
> things at all. Specifically, you are a human OM of a particular age in
> the 21st century on Earth. When you contemplate your future, finding
> yourself a five year old child, or a Chinese peasant, or an insect
> creature on a planet orbiting Sirius are not options that are open to
> you, *given* where you are now, even though these OM's may be of high
> measure. The only OM's you can experience are those in which your
> present OM is in the subjective past.

I thought there was no choice - you experience *all* "your" OMs, because that
what OMs are, they're very short (infinitesimal) duration experiences.  So each
one is an experience which in part may be remember some other OMs as being in
the past.  Every OM is a now and "you" are in it.  I put "you" in scare quotes
because from this viewpoint "you" is just some subset of OMs.

Brent

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Stathis Papaioannou-2]

2009/6/16 Brent Meeker <meekerdb@...>:

> I thought there was no choice - you experience *all* "your" OMs, because that
> what OMs are, they're very short (infinitesimal) duration experiences.  So each
> one is an experience which in part may be remember some other OMs as being in
> the past.  Every OM is a now and "you" are in it.  I put "you" in scare quotes
> because from this viewpoint "you" is just some subset of OMs.

That's true but you have the illusion of being a unique individual
travelling through time in the forward direction. When we talk about
expectations for the future, quantum immortality and so on we are
talking about how this illusion unfolds.


--
Stathis Papaioannou

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[david.nyman]

On Jun 16, 1:04 am, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@...> wrote:

> The only OM's you can experience are those in which your
> present OM is in the subjective past.

So you are saying that - given my 'current' OM - sampling is
restricted to the set of OM's you define above?  Why?  This seems to
presuppose some pre-determined temporal ordering of experience
regardless of the measure of OM's over my total life-histories.  That
is, a 'flow of time' broadly equivalent to our 'common sense' view (in
its MWI guise).  Does this mean that you disagree with the notion that
we can draw conclusions (a la Bostrom) about measure from the OM we
happen to be experiencing?  IOW, the fact that I am "a human OM of a
particular age in the 21st century on Earth" is of no particular
significance in determining whether this represents some point of
maximal conscious measure in my life-histories?

David

> 2009/6/16 David Nyman <david.ny...@...>:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Forgive me in advance if this has been covered adequately before in
> > the list, but the following occurs to me with respect to 'Bostrom'
> > style assessments of where I should expect my 'current' OM to be
> > situated with respect to the total population of OMs in which I exist.
>
> > Presumably, I should expect that my current awareness of my 'life-
> > stage' will be characteristic of those OMs with the highest
> > 'measure' (a concept upon which I think I have at least a vague grasp
> > in this context).  Ostensibly, taking into account the various points
> > at which I die off, one would expect that the highest such measure
> > would be characteristic of a later life-stage rather than an earlier,
> > taken across all branches in which I exist. Indeed, I don't recall
> > ever having been any older!
>
> > However, assuming the co-existence of all OMs (i.e. where 'time
> > doesn't actually 'unfold'), should I expect ever to find myself
> > conscious of an OM of lower measure?  What does this say about my
> > ostensibly conscious past experiences (i.e. those putatively
> > representing OMs of lower measure)?  Should I conclude that 'from here
> > on' in terms of life-stage my survivors are on average becoming rarer
> > and that consequently on the basis of measure I shouldn't expect to
> > experience getting any older?  In this case, does it further imply
> > that the experience of quantum immortality would make sense only in
> > terms of some sort of 'real' time-line along which I could expect to
> > actually experience an extended 'tail' of surviving conscious moments
> > regardless of their measure?
>
> It depends on how you do the sampling. If you consider yourself an
> undifferentiated soul, contemplating what sort of OM you are going to
> become, then you will most likely find yourself an OM of high measure.
> But this is not how the sampling happens. What happens is that you are
> *already* an OM - obviously, if you are able to think about these
> things at all. Specifically, you are a human OM of a particular age in
> the 21st century on Earth. When you contemplate your future, finding
> yourself a five year old child, or a Chinese peasant, or an insect
> creature on a planet orbiting Sirius are not options that are open to
> you, *given* where you are now, even though these OM's may be of high
> measure. The only OM's you can experience are those in which your
> present OM is in the subjective past.
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Stathis Papaioannou-2]

2009/6/16 David Nyman <david.nyman@...>:

>
> On Jun 16, 1:04 am, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@...> wrote:
>
>> The only OM's you can experience are those in which your
>> present OM is in the subjective past.
>
> So you are saying that - given my 'current' OM - sampling is
> restricted to the set of OM's you define above?  Why?  This seems to
> presuppose some pre-determined temporal ordering of experience
> regardless of the measure of OM's over my total life-histories.  That
> is, a 'flow of time' broadly equivalent to our 'common sense' view (in
> its MWI guise).

The illusion of a flow of time is created by the fact that
subjectively later OM's remember subjectively earlier OM's. Today is
Tuesday, and I remember yesterday, which was Monday, and look forward
to tomorrow, which will be Wednesday. It could be that in real time,
Wednesday occurred yesterday and Monday will occur tomorrow, but this
can make no subjective difference to me experiencing the illusion of
continuity from one day to the next. Even if a trillion copies of the
Monday me are run tomorrow, that cannot possibly cause me to wake up
in my subjective future and find, to my great surprise, that it is
Monday rather than Wednesday. Or to put it differently, I *will* wake
up tomorrow (per real time) and find that it is Monday, but that
version of me will have no memory of Tuesday, whereas the Wednesday
version of me that was actually run yesterday will have this memory.

The subjective temporal ordering of experience has nothing to do with
the actual temporal ordering of OM's and will also occur in the
absence of any actual temporal ordering, i.e. in a block universe.
Only OM's with a particular content are candidates for inclusion in my
subjective future. Of those candidates, which one I will experience
depends on their relative measure.

> Does this mean that you disagree with the notion that
> we can draw conclusions (a la Bostrom) about measure from the OM we
> happen to be experiencing?  IOW, the fact that I am "a human OM of a
> particular age in the 21st century on Earth" is of no particular
> significance in determining whether this represents some point of
> maximal conscious measure in my life-histories?

The self-sampling assumption is useful if I am trying to guess what
group I am in. If I don't know whether it is Monday or Tuesday but I
know that there are a trillionfold as many copies of the Monday me,
then I should bet on it being Monday. But if I already know that it's
Tuesday, then the probability that it is Monday is zero and the
probability that I will experience Monday in the future is also zero.
You might say that it very unlikely that it would be Tuesday if there
are a trillionfold as many Monday copies, but we come up against this
all the time in everyday life. It is far more likely that a person
will be born in China than in Lichtenstein, but given that he was born
in Lichtenstein, he stays born in Lichtenstein.


--
Stathis Papaioannou

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Bruno Marchal]

On 15 Jun 2009, at 19:31, David Nyman wrote:

>
> Forgive me in advance if this has been covered adequately before in
> the list, but the following occurs to me with respect to 'Bostrom'
> style assessments of where I should expect my 'current' OM to be
> situated with respect to the total population of OMs in which I exist.
>
> Presumably, I should expect that my current awareness of my 'life-
> stage' will be characteristic of those OMs with the highest
> 'measure' (a concept upon which I think I have at least a vague grasp
> in this context).  Ostensibly, taking into account the various points
> at which I die off, one would expect that the highest such measure
> would be characteristic of a later life-stage rather than an earlier,
> taken across all branches in which I exist. Indeed, I don't recall
> ever having been any older!
>
> However, assuming the co-existence of all OMs (i.e. where 'time
> doesn't actually 'unfold'), should I expect ever to find myself
> conscious of an OM of lower measure?  What does this say about my
> ostensibly conscious past experiences (i.e. those putatively
> representing OMs of lower measure)?  Should I conclude that 'from here
> on' in terms of life-stage my survivors are on average becoming rarer
> and that consequently on the basis of measure I shouldn't expect to
> experience getting any older?  In this case, does it further imply
> that the experience of quantum immortality would make sense only in
> terms of some sort of 'real' time-line along which I could expect to
> actually experience an extended 'tail' of surviving conscious moments
> regardless of their measure?
>
> I'm definitely confused.

I would distinguish the 1-OMs with the 3-OMs (by 1-x, resp. 3-x, I  
mean x from the first person view, resp. from the third person view).

Assuming the computationalist hypothesis, and some reasoning, the 3-
OMs "appears" infinitely often, or are defined infinitely often in the  
arithmetical truth (the tiny part of it corresponding to the universal  
deployment). It is not difficult to realize that if you put the first  
person indeterminacy of the 1-OMs, on the 3-OMs, then we should expect  
white noise. So the measure on the 1-OMs have to be related on the  
computational histories, that is the computations in the Universal  
Dovetailing which go through the corresponding 3-OMs. There are  
uncountably many such histories.
I will come back on this in my explanation to Kim and Marty, of the  
seven step of the Universal Dovetailer Argument. You may read or  
reread the first sixth step (cf the paper : http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html)
. You could try to catch up, because Marty is in holiday, and I have  
the june exams. We go very slowly starting from zero, but in such a  
way that the math is introduced little by little.

To be sure, this type of explanation is based on the relative self-
sampling assumption. I don't know if a notion of absolute self-
sampling assumption, à-la-Bostrom, makes sense in the frame of the  
computationalist hypothesis, although some use of it cannot be  
excluded, notably to prevent trivial and inconsistent histories. An  
ASSA  "Turing-thropic" is not excluded per se by the use of RSSA  
measure. (This would entail multi-multi-verses, ...)

To be clear, I agree with Stathis's answer (to you and to Brent),  
except that Stathis does not take into account that with the comp hyp.  
a computational state, and thus a 3-OM, makes sense only relatively to  
a universal machine/system/language. And then, the corresponding 1-OM  
will be related by the infinitely many universal system which  
generates them. All this leads to math, at some point. Physical and  
psychological times could be very different, and both emerge from the  
natural number relations, once we assume we are digital machines (or  
digitalizable machines).

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---