• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Allan Randall - ImmInst Chat


  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

#1 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 01 March 2004 - 10:19 AM


Chat Topic: Allan Randall - Quantum Mechanics & Immortality
AI researcher and ImmInst Full Member, Allan F. Randall (allanrandall) joins ImmInst to discuss how quantum mechanics may allow for the possibility of immortality.

Chat Time: Sunday April 4, 2004 @ 8 PM Eastern
Chat Room: http://www.imminst.org/chat
or, Server: irc.lucifer.com - Port: 6667 - #immortal

Posted Image
Allan F. Randall
York University, Dept. of Philosophy
HomePage: http://www.elea.org/

Allan Randall received his B.Sc. in Mathematics and Computer Science from St. Francis Xavier University in 1986, and his M.A. in Computing Science from the University of Alberta in 1990, specializing in Artificial Intelligence (A.I.). He worked for NTT Systems Inc. in Toronto, Ontario, Canada for seven years, mostly doing contract A.I. work for the Department of National Defence.

He has since taught Information Technologies at a technical college, pursued contract technical writing, and since 1998 has been teaching Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics at the Abelard School, a Toronto high school for gifted students.

He is currently doing graduate work in Philosophy at York University, specializing in the philosophy of mathematics and the interpretation of quantum mechanics. His online version of Parmenides’ On Nature is currently used in many university courses and has been widely acclaimed as a rare, easy-to-read, sympathetic translation. He is currently turning it into a book. He lives in Toronto with his fiancée Vee Ledson, two dogs and a cat.

He is a transhumanist and life extensionist, a member of the Extropy Institute, the World Transhumanist Association and the Immortality Institute. He is in the process of signing up with Alcor Life Extension Foundation.

#2 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 05 April 2004 - 02:34 AM

CHAT ARCHIVE:


<BJKlein> welcome AllanRandall
<BJKlein> ya ready for some fun?
<AllanRandall> Hi... sorry I am late... I was unable to online... server errors...
<Randolfe> People always break up when I tell them I joined a great group with a very simple aim: "overcoming involuntary death". I say join a good group with a clearly stated "big" goal.
<BJKlein> No problem, Allan..
<AllanRandall> Big goals are underrated...
<Gewis> and a plan for achieving that goal
<BJKlein> we'll go ahead and kick things off.. and extend the official chat to 9:20 Eastern
* BJKlein Official Chat Starts
<BJKlein> Allan Randall - Quantum Mechanics & Immortality
<BJKlein> AI researcher and ImmInst Full Member, Allan F. Randall (allanrandall) joins ImmInst to discuss how quantum mechanics may allow for the possibility of immortality.
<BJKlein> http://www.imminst.o...&f=63&t=3202&s=
<BJKlein> Thanks for joining us Allan
<AllanRandall> One of my philosophy profs once complained about a colleagu's metaphysics by saying it wasn't down to earth enough... my response: philosophers are supposed to think BIG... it shouldnn't be a criticism
<BJKlein> seems most humans are underthinkers in this regard
<BJKlein> an artifact of our evolution.. as it was better to think "safe"
*** Joins: V (~V@H28.C230.tor.velocet.net)
<BJKlein> What got you into transhumanism, Allan?
<AllanRandall> Immortality is a big idea.. but as a die-hard rationalist, I consider my goal to take reason to its logical conclusion, no matter how absurd to common sense that may seem... this is always what gets us rationalists into trouble with the more down-to-earth empiricists.
<BJKlein> What's the worst trouble you've gotten into thinking in this way?
<AllanRandall> I have been a transhumanist since I was in my teens, I think... but of course did not call it that. I recently got involved with the cryonics movement upon learning about the recent vitrification breakthroughs... this got me interested in the organized transhumanist movement, and I have recently started to become active... long overdue though.
<BJKlein> Have you managed to hook up with Transhumanist in Toronto yet?
<AllanRandall> The thing is... my metaphysics already gets me into trouble with the down-to-earth types... so transhumanism is only modestly more trouble
<Randolfe> The discussion of memory as a part of personality, false memory and "restoring memory" has been a big subject on cryonet lately.
<AllanRandall> I have emailed the Pres and VP of TTA (Toronto Trans-hum.) and am planning to become more actively involved... am meeting at monthly cryonics meetings here that have been well-attended and very positive
<BJKlein> George Dvorsky - Simon Smith (i think)
<Cliff> Here is a quantum mechanics related question for Allan: In the MWI, is each version of a person a composite of many subsystems that are locally splitting apart into different worlds? If so, how is a person maintained as an integrated unit? Is it necessary to define an effective number of versions rather than an actual number of versions of a person as existing at any time? If N is the effective number of versions of a person existing
*** Joins: mporter (~moii@c210-49-82-219.rochd3.qld.optusnet.com.au)
<AllanRandall> The issue of memory and how it relates to consciousness and personal identity is a big concern of mine. The essay I submitted to the imminst book is about the relationship between a many worlds view of QM, a computational view of identity and immortality.
<gustavo> Hello Allan: what aspect of your metaphysics is controversial? (if it is possible to explain it here)
<BJKlein> Thanks again for your submission, Allan (in review).
<AllanRandall> Cliff: excellent question. I believe that Kant had the answer to this essentially correct, with his "synthetic unity of consciousness"... I adhere to a computational version of it. It is the emergence of a consciousness that defines the space-time that one is in.... the unity of the spacetime IS the unity of the consciousness, not the other way around.
<Randolfe> The scientific study of memory is very frightening. Every time you recall a memory, they have found out you change it a bit before restoring it. It is like our memories don't really exist like we think they do.
*** Joins: planetp (~psiphius@24-176-176-158.cs-cres.charterpipeline.net)
<AllanRandall> My metaphysics is purely computational, and hence anti-materialis... computational is reality. Not so controversial perhaps in transhumanist circles, but not exactly in vogue amongst philosopher in general.
<cyborg01> I think unity of consciousness is entirely subjective..
*** Joins: John_Venturevile (~John_Vent@24-117-207-248.cpe.cableone.net)
<John_Venturevile> hello everyone
<AllanRandall> cyborg: yes, this was Kant's point: "synthetic" basically means "subjective", I think, in the sense you mean it, if I guess correctly.
<Mind> hi
<Daraknor> Hello
<planetp> I'
*** Joins: ocsrazor (~ocsrazor@ece-237-105.ece.gatech.edu)
<Mind> Simple yes/no question
<John_Venturevile> greetings from the land of the hopeful ice
<Mind> Allan, I read your essay about minor/major quantum miracles and immortality….
<Mind> Would you agree that our quantum reality (or quantum worldline) is one (of many) that is headed towards indefinite life span?
<Mind> I think so because a world where aging is conquered seems to be a likely world for me to be in…that is it doesn't seem like a major quantum miracle is required to defeat aging.
*** Joins: TylerEmerson (~TylerEmer@host-64-72-54-38.classicnet.net)
<planetp> Sorry for being late, has anyone asked about the limitations of quantum immortality - specifically, that the end result is that we will slowly fade away, as the multi-worlds interpretation, we will most likely end up in an universe where our brains slowly degrade, I don't see a way out of that.
<AllanRandall> Randolfe: yup.... I like Daniel Dennett' metaphor of consciousness as a continually editted narrative we spin about ourselves. But this idea is VERY frightening to some... undermines their whole concept of who they are.
<Cliff> Here is an interesting alternative to a quantum suicide experiment. All of us are participating in this experiment whether we want to or not. In the MWI, we are progressively eliminated from all worlds in which we are not immortal. Over time, the effective number of versions of a person that live longer than a century would outnumber, by huge orders of magnitude, the effective number of versions of the person that live for less than a
<planetp> yes, but what about the slow death, of gradual dying out of each neuron, resulting ultimately in an extreme "alzheimers" brain?
<AllanRandall> Mind: I would like to hope that we are one of those, yes. Given the advance of technology, I see no reason not proceed on that (optimistic) assumtion.
<BJKlein> NOTE: AllanRandall is our official chat guest till 9:20
<BJKlein> Eastern
<Mind> thank you allan
<gustavo> about memory
<gustavo> There is an article in the new york times this week about neurobiologists trying to "cure" post-traumatic disorders by editing or removing memories.
*** Joins: serenade (~jay@pcp09090294pcs.flint01.mi.comcast.net)
<cyborg01> Personally I don't think forgetting things continually is bad... provided new memory is also continually forming
<gustavo> that is frightening also: aren't they killing ME if they remove my past experience?
<planetp> Gustavo- James Hughes has a good article over at Cyborg Democracy about why that is a bad thing.
<AllanRandall> Slowly fading: I have considered that, and I think yes, if you mean the density of universes in which the person exists might slowly decrease.... I think in a given world, however, it is more likely that death is as sudden or slow as it naively appears to be.
<planetp> He makes a good argument, that we would end up as morally/ethically bankrupt/empty
<Randolfe> This was a quote from today's cryonet posting. It quotes the professional who conducted one of the studies:""The findings support the general theoretical perspective that memories
<gustavo> I'll check it out, planetp, thanks
*** Joins: outlawpoet (~Justin@24.130.29.164)
<planetp> Allan - for example, take a guy who is 105 now, when he dies here, he most likely ends up in a universe where his body is still barely haning on, his brain still mushy thinking, and so on and so on, until he just fades away???
<cyborg01> The MWI is unfalsifiable...
<planetp> Cyborg - not necessarily.
<cyborg01> Then where is the experiment to verify that
<planetp> I'm checking Google, one sec.
<planetp> Check this guys work - David Deutch - http://www.qubit.org...avid/David.html
<Randolfe> One argument is that memory is a combination of what actually happened to you and your past experiences and future expectations. Our minds play tricks on us all the time.
<planetp> Quantum computing lends support to MWI
<cyborg01> Randolfe: relax.. most of the time we read back a diary and don't really find inconsistancies
<AllanRandall> In my article on this... an early version is online, a more recent version submitted to imminst.... I address the idea of "eternally increasing decrepitude"... perhaps what planetp is referring to? But I reject the idea for the same reason that I reject the immortality proofs of Tipler and Mike Perry.... I think that once "major" quantum miracles are required to save you, some sort of dream-like state that barely counts as you will alway
<Cliff> Before speaking of worlds in which the 100+ year old mind fades away, do not forget the worlds in which technology came to its rescue and kept it youthful.
<ocsrazor> Yes Randolfe, there is much neurological evidence that we continually edit our old memories
<planetp> Thanks Allan - I'm excited to see your refutaions. :)
<AllanRandall> Deutsch: yes, his Fabric of Reality is a very good presentation of the MWI... his metaphysics is very different from mine though... he is not a computationalist
<Randolfe> Your diary is more reliable than your mind.
<AllanRandall> Falsifiability: depends on which part of it you are concentrating on, and what you see as its competition. I think MWI is simply a logical consequence of QM, and therefore is as falsifiable as QM, no more no less.
<ocsrazor> yep Randolfe, your dendritic trees are constantly being remodeled - consciousness is a process, not a static entity
<John_Venturevile> it seems to me that with the technologies made available over the next few centuries, that the memories of immortals could be recorded with an implanted computer, and then they could "relive" their memories in a fully immersive journal format
*bioimmortal* & whats MWI
<John_Venturevile> as necessary they could download memory as they needed, to a computer storage device outside their body
<Randolfe> If I could be born again with no memories, would that be so bad? Why are we so attached to our memories? Some memories are terrible.
<ocsrazor> Allan - I thought there was a very strong case that all possible realities are collapsing in the now to the universe we see?
<John_Venturevile> we could have a.i. filing and even prioritizing our memories
<AllanRandall> Your diary IS more reliable than your mind. Yet, given Kant's synthetic unity (call it SU), the reliability of your diary (its physical coherence and stability) is determined by the unity of your mind and your memories. Ironic. That which creates stability is less "reliable" than that which it creates.
<John_Venturevile> we might depend on them to download key memories from 10,000 years before, needed for a key decision
<Randolfe> A diary is probably more reliable because you write it down immediately after it happens (usually). Time changes our memories, the "mental ink" fades and changes.
<ocsrazor> John - but we constantly edit them, there is no such thing as a static memory for humans, and at that point we would be the AI, wouldn't we?
<John_Venturevile> the a.i. could record our memories on several different levels, what our senses actually take in, and then what our brain made of what it took in
<AllanRandall> ocsrazor: I have never seen evidence for that. QM as it stands involves a superposition of possibilties. It is possible it all collpases down to one -- I call that the Spinozistic option as opposed to the Leibnizian option (MW) - but it is a metaphysical assumption that makes that idea more pleasing to some than others. My computational metaphysics makes MWI simpler (I think!)
<planetp> Allan - do you have a url to your objection to "eternally increasing decrepitude"?
<AllanRandall> On memories: anyone see the Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind? It is about intentional memory erasure, I think. Haven't seen it. Might be fun.
<gustavo> Randolfe: we are attached to our memories because that's what we ARE. Oblivion = death.
<Randolfe> Any possibility we have a "memory bucket" in our mind only a certain size and when we put in new memories, like extra water, the others swpill out?
<ocsrazor> to some degree yes Randolfe...
<John_Venturevile> Ocs, we would have to try for an independent observer a.i. within us, even if we are ourselves on the level of an a.i.
<BJKlein> "Modality in Computational Metaphysics" http://home.ican.net...ndall/Modality/
<gustavo> If you are reborn with no memories, then you are another person.
<planetp> Thanks BJ.
<BJKlein> np
<John_Venturevile> How many people here keep a regular journal?
<AllanRandall> planetp: partially. My website has an essay on QM and immortality that was written I think in '97 or '98. I give a rough argument there. My full argument, which gives a much clearer probabilistic argument, is in the imminst submitted essay. But I'm not releasing that while it is under consideration for publication.
* BJKlein posts to ImmInst daily
<Randolfe> I think one can be the "product of experiences" even if one has no actual memory. People forget everything but remain themselves in some instances
<Jonesey> there must be some memory then randolfe.
<ocsrazor> Randolfe - there is a finite amount of possible storage, and a use or lose it principle at work in the mammalian cortex
<Jonesey> something got saved somewhere.
*** Joins: Gewis (~gewis@auth3-1.ycell.octelecom.net)
<ocsrazor> but very few people every reach those limits
<Randolfe> A piece of clay can be "molded" into a shape but not remember the fingers that shaped it.
<ocsrazor> John - I keep a journal
* Gewis keeps a journal.
<AllanRandall> We are more than our memories. Memories are just part of it. But it is a big part. Also, keep in mind that most people who lose their memories but remain "somehow the same" have not really lost their memory entirely... just the explicit, declarative aspect of their memory.
<Daraknor> I keep a livejournal but don't put any of my life in it
<AllanRandall> Randolfe: good point. But there is still memory there in the clay, even if not very direct. In a sense we become different people throughout our lives, but in another sense we remain very much the same... where you draw the line is arbitary to some extent
<Randolfe> What kind of "live journal" could exist without any of your life being in it?
<Daraknor> *grin* you grabbed the bait.
<Daraknor> My words and expressions reflect who I am at any given point, there is no way of separating "my writing style" from who I am. Even if I don't record what I had for breakfast, the information contained through expression captures more of me as an individual
<Cliff> All of a person's memories could be coded on a storage medium and not be conscious at all. A person could lose a majority of memories and feel no different if those lost memories were rarely accessed.
<ocsrazor> yep Cliff, its a resolution issue
<ocsrazor> how much of you do you want, this is also a critical issue for cryonics
<BJKlein> Allan, does your wife share your ideas (if I may ask)?
<AllanRandall> The First Immortal seems to think that you could reconstruct something close enough from indirect evidence and other people's memories of that person. Mike Perry in Forever For All seems to say something similar... he even suggests that if you create made-up memories in an AI, that it will be a real physical person in SOME world of the MWI, and so arbitrary creation of made-up memories actual create real historical people, in a way. This
<Randolfe> The memory issue is a subset of "nature versus nurture". Our genes shape who we are as much as our experiences and memories.
<AllanRandall> My wife thinks MWI is an interesting curiosity, I think. But she and I are in the process of signing up with Alcor together.
<planetp> Regarding Journaling - within a few years, it will be possible to record, store, and retrieve any moment in our lives using wearable computing devices.
<ocsrazor> they set the intial conditions Randolfe but I would be loathe to say they shape anything beyond basic neurochemistry
<Randolfe> does
<Gewis> Yeah. The "molded clay" model likely has more applicability to defining identity, as we're molded by genetics, environmental/physiological changes, etc. and our memories help us identify what the fingers were that molded us, but we're molded even without them.
<Randolfe> alcor promise you will end up in the same tank as your wife?
<BJKlein> Allan, your last post ended: "creation of made-up memories actual create real historical people, in a way. This..."
<Gewis> *even without the memories, that is.
<BJKlein> did you say more? it may have been cut-off
<AllanRandall> A wearable computer of the near future is going to record only the veneer on the surface, and would not (I think) be anywhere enough to be considered a record of a person's identity. Or even enough to attempt a reasonable reconstruction. Just my opinion.
<ocsrazor> agreed randall, far too much complexity
<Gewis> more like taking pictures... another person can look at a photograph, but that doesn't really convey the real experience associated with it.
<ocsrazor> strong realtme interfacing may provide some hope of that though
<John_Venturevile> *his and hers" dewars are all the rage at Alcor
<John_Venturevile> *right....*
<AllanRandall> Bruce: I said that this thinking is one of my major targets (Perry and Tipler)... that not every world you can IMAGINE has the STABILITY to be considered a universe.
<Randolfe> I don't want any floating heads im my dewar!!!
<ocsrazor> do you think most of them do have the stability allan?
<BJKlein> Allan, with ocsrazor, i tend to agree.. in short Tippler and Perry seem a bit to optimistic
<AllanRandall> I also think that, while the line between one's own identity and that of othesrs may be technically arbitrary, it is not nearly as arbitrary as some imagine. You cannot BE Jesus Christ no matter how much you think you are him. And even if you change so much that you think "hmmm, I am really a different person now", that doesn't make it so. Your own opinion on who you are is not authoritative.
<Gewis> Allan, but even if MWI implies a immortality in a stable imaginable universe, what implication does any of that have for being immortal with your friends and family along with you?
<gustavo> Allan, what about Mel Gibson?
<Gewis> If it's all left to probability distributions without significant technological advance, other people will die in your universe, even though you may continue, right?
<AllanRandall> ocsrazor: Most that are not immediate extrapolations on our observed environemtn are probably not real... mere figments of our imaginations (even though the technically exist in the wavefunction of the multiverse.... but being in the wavefunction is not enough.... a certain stability is rquired.
<Gewis> lol, gustavo
<ocsrazor> OK Allan that is what I was getting at, from most of the theory I have read it seems...
<AllanRandall> Gewis: yes, so long as what I call "major quantum miracles" are not required to keep you alive (so long as your universe has stability) then you will continue to live indefinitely, but others will gradually die through accident or whatnot.
<ocsrazor> as though very few Universes are mathematically possible
<Randolfe> After all those suspended through cryonics are "revived", they are going to be very lonely. They will have to clone identical twins of themself to keep themself company and to have another who understands them. (Just politicking here)
<Cliff> Gewis: MWI would have some worlds in which friends and family are separated, other worlds in which they are together, and still other worlds in which you have a brother that you do not have here.
<Gewis> Yes, Cliff, but in terms of probability and perception, that's irrelevant, as it's nearly guaranteed that all my friends will die and I'll be a lonely man.
<Randolfe> Gewis, cloning is the answer.
<Daraknor> regarding the "enough people's understanding of you" = ability to recreate you, I don't think that is accurate. Most people hold private quirks that they don't share but heavily influence their actions
<John_Venturevile> Randolfe, considering the hundreds of cryonauts already frozen or at least signed up, I don't think such measures will be necessary
<AllanRandall> Yes, very few, I think. Consider that our universe is an aspect of a huge fractal structure (like a Mandelbrot set)... it is the initially very simple equation that is the "reality"... the complexity we see arise from this underlying simplicity. But mere "imagined complexity" will not neessarily arise from a simple enough equation... Probability theory demands that universes with the required density to be stable be complex beasts arisin
<Randolfe> Identical twins are not "most people". They share a special closeness and communication..and perhaps "quirks"
<Gewis> Allan, you talk about a wave-function of the multi-verse, is this simply the superposition of wave-functions of universes, or is it something else?
<John_Venturevile> Randolfe, the society which brings back the cryonicists will determine whether or not a "clone twin" could even be created. They might disallow that but create special android companions programmed to play socialworker/buddy
<AllanRandall> Cliff: yes, except that there may be no universe in which you have a brother you don't have here. That would perhaps be too contrived, and thus be COMPLEX like the Mandelbrot set, but without the underlying simplicityof a simple equation.... too contrived, unstable, and thus physically nonexistant.
<Randolfe> Cloning is a lot closer than cryonic revival. I want a twin. I don't want an android companion.
<John_Venturevile> Randolfe, you may not get a choice in the matter.
<John_Venturevile> depends on how open the society is that you return to
<AllanRandall> Gewis: I think that is a fiar enough description for our purposes, yes.
<Cliff> Gewis: You would not likiely be lonely because the worlds in which you survive would likely be the ones in which you, your friends, and family all benefit from technology that came through in worlds other than this in which you and they also exist.
<Randolfe> I wonder what a poll would show regarding social attitutdes toward cryonics versus cloning. Both would be hugely unpopular.
*** Joins: gustavo (~gustavo@pool-138-88-112-145.res.east.verizon.net)
<gustavo> going back to your metaphysics. You said it's "computational". Do you mean that we are the "pattern", the software, the code, and not the hardware... is it anti-materialist in this way?
<Gewis> Yes, Cliff, that's true. But the question was simply talking about a straight MWI without those probable technological advances that would provide those life-span extensions.
<John_Venturevile> there are alot of misconceptions about cryonics relationship with cloning
<bioimmortal> AllanRandall did u ever question the Probability theory? cause i sometimes tend 2 think its not between 0 & 1 but exactly 0 or 1 like in computers..seems 2me its implied by cause-effect law
<Cliff> Straight MWI must include the effect of technology on probabilities.
<AllanRandall> Gustavo: yes... it is strongly anti-materialist. One beef I have with some supposed computationalists is that they hold out for some ultimate material substrate underneath, which cannot really be made sense of. This leads to the sorts of fanciful conclusions we get from Perry.
<Randolfe> No misunderstandings, John, cryonics is going to make cloning possible for me. I mean my later-born twin. I need cryonics for that purpose.
<AllanRandall> bioimmoratl: probability theory does not depend on a 0/1 dichotomy.
<AllanRandall> bioimmortal:sorry, are you saying there should only be 0% and 100%, nothing in between... not sure I'm understanding
<bioimmortal> yea
<Cliff> Identical twins have completely separate minds. How would cloning preserve a person's mind at all?
<John_Venturevile> If the multi-worlds theory is correct, I tend to wonder how many of "me" were really exceptional in their achievements and how many didn't do well, or even became criminals
<hkhenson> it won't
<Randolfe> If something is a question of "A" or "B", doesn't it have to be one. There isn't any letter inbetween.
<AllanRandall> Randolfe: if it is a twin you want, and that is what you value, then fine. I can't say that appeals to me so much....
<ocsrazor> along the lines of bioim - at its most fundamental Allan, do you see a fundamental pariculate layer
<BJKlein> we're nearing the end of our official chat, however all are invited to stay longer
<John_Venturevile> does theory allow for the possibility of people from one parallel world "breaking through the wall" to visit a twin in another parallel world?
<Randolfe> I want "sound effects" here at the chat room so BJ can blow a whistle now and then to let us know time is running out. (ha)
<AllanRandall> Randolfe: no,because A and B in prob. theory are equivalence classes... groups of possibilities, not particular events...
* BJKlein clangs a couple of pans together
<John_Venturevile> Yeouch!
<John_Venturevile> that was loud!
* BJKlein looks around
<Randolfe> Two pans cost too much. It would bust our budget.
<AllanRandall> "breaking through": this does not seem to me to be possible... but it could depend on what you count as "breaking through"
<BJKlein> sorry, the pans are dewer lids
<Cliff> Would not a teacher student relationship accomplish more for mind preservation than cloning?
<John_Venturevile> BJ, just remember to pit the lids back once your done
<John_Venturevile> : )
<Gewis> Bruce, dewar lids belong on the dewars... all the liquid nitro will evaporate!
<bioimmortal> AllanRandall do feel having free will?
* BJKlein runs screaming
<Randolfe> Watch out for frostbite. I hear its an occupational hazard at Alcor.
<AllanRandall> Cliff:not necessarily... both are too far from mind preservation for me to take seriously
* BJKlein official chat ends
<John_Venturevile> BJ, no volunteering at Alcor for you!!
<AllanRandall> I think the notion of "free will" is mostly incoherent as it is typically conceived of.
<BJKlein> free will.. that one really screws me over
<BJKlein> i still don't think we have it..
<John_Venturevile> and I still do
<bioimmortal> yee BJKlein agreed
<Cliff> Of course neither preserves the mind, but the student does gain some mind content similar to the teacher.
<Randolfe> We delude ourselves into believing we have free will.
<John_Venturevile> *because I have no choice but to think that due to my lack of true free will*
<ocsrazor> we have free will within a litmited space of possibility
<AllanRandall> You have to say what you mean by free will first. Most "free-willers" can't define it clearly enough for me to really respond coherently.
<Daraknor> I am That i Am.
<BJKlein> i see every atom as doing what it wants..
<AllanRandall> Cliff: yes. But the clone continues on the built-in tendencies and personality of the person. I guess it is a matter of which you value more.But only a continuation of both together is really immortality, I think.
<BJKlein> any 'will' i have is illusional
<Randolfe> Don't worry about that Allan, conherency and consistency are the hobglobins of small minds.
<AllanRandall> Consistency I don't so much require... some degree of coherence I can start with, and we can work together to make it consistent later.
<ocsrazor> a consciouness is limited by the physical laws of the universe and by other consciousness, those are the boundaries...
<John_Venturevile> BJ, so you are just a preprogrammed robot? A windup doll with only the illusion of free choice?
<AllanRandall> it is imporatnt to define terms, but not so narrowly that one is trapped by the definitions.
<ocsrazor> they form the state space of possibility
* BJKlein nods to John_Venturevile
<bioimmortal> AllanRandall Here is it: do u think there's any factor other than 1)quantum fluctuations which r accidents IMO & 2) causalism which influences happenings?
<ocsrazor> how much they limit action by a single consciousness is yet to be determined
<John_Venturevile> BJ, this argument reminds me of the classic theological puzzle of God's omnicience vrs. our freedom of choice.
<AllanRandall> ocsrazor: if Kant's SU is correct, one's consciousness is what limits the physical world, not the other way around. What limits consciousness is rather mathematical or computational in nature, in my view.
* bioimmortal waits 4 ans.
<ocsrazor> the short version of my opinion is that the mathematics or computation you are talking about is one of the fundamental physical laws...
<AllanRandall> bioimmortal: the only ultimate factors that my system recognizes are: (1) the space of all possible computations (2) the probability distributions of the consciousnesses to be found there
<Randolfe> Good night to all. I am going to another universe for a while. See you next week.
<ocsrazor> its the one driving self organizing systems toward higher levels of complexity
<John_Venturevile> night, Randolife
<ocsrazor> bye randolfe
<AllanRandall> bio: Ie: causality is emergent from more fundaental factors, and is not an ultimate metaphysical category.
<AllanRandall> Thanks Randolfe!
<BJKlein> Take care Randolfe
<AllanRandall> Perry and Tipler essentially believe we CAN do what Randolfe joked about: quantum jump to other universes.
<bioimmortal> AllanRandall i wonder, emergent from what? 4 eg
<Daraknor> doesn't causality mostly reply on everything else being equal? The concept that you have X vs Y and if X>Y then Z happens?
<AllanRandall> bioimm: I men physical causality of course... it is a requirement, I suspect for stable consciousness, but ultimate reality is just all computation (there is a kind of causality, I suppose, in computing theory... but it is clearly not physical)
<bioimmortal> AllanRandall do u find any causality in fluctuations of QM?
<ocsrazor> you don't think time's arrow is physically encoded into the base properties of the universe Allan
<ocsrazor> ?
<bioimmortal> ocsrazor in 4d space-t we have time-cones..
<bioimmortal> IMO
<Cliff> The idea of time symmetry has quantum particles moving both fowrard and backward in time. Only thermodynamics has a time arrow.
<AllanRandall> Remember that the "program" that is running our universe is time-symmetrical.... the idea of "A causes B" is time-assymetirical (this does not require QM... Newton's mechanics is time-symmetric). Time's arrow is thermodynamics, which means it depends on an ARBITRARY deivision of events into equivalence classes... this division is thus a feature of MIND. It sounds almost mystical, and like I'm saying the world is mental... but no, it is c
<AllanRandall> It is ultimately arbitrary to say that a particle moves "backward" in time.... only large collections of particles can be considered t support the statistical mechanics required to have an arrow of time.
<ocsrazor> I tend to agree with you Allan, but my feeling is that what you are referring to as mental isn't just about consciousness, but extends to all self organizing systems, the universe included
<AllanRandall> ocs: the arrow is a requirement for consciousness, and since I think that these requirement determine physical space, then yes time's arrow is encoded into the base properties of the physical universe.... but these are not the base properties of REALITY, which I don't consider physical.
<ocsrazor> REALITY, meaning the arrow might not be necessary in another possible universe?
<bioimmortal> hrr AllanRandall do u imply that 'time-reversability' denies causality?
<cyborg01> I just read the web page. the MWI is unfalsifiable.
<AllanRandall> ocsrazor: Sure, but, following the Anthropic Principle in a MWI context, it is the "mental" property of consciousness that is the philosophically appropriate basis. Self-organizing systems in general may have many of the same properties, but that it incidental. It is the fact that consciousness has these properties that determines the character of physical law.
<AllanRandall> cyborg01: why is the MWI unfalsifiable?
<Cliff> An appplication for backwards time travel is a photon travelling forward in time from source to detector interfering with a photon travelling backward in time from detector to source.
<ocsrazor> hmmm I sense a chicken-egg problem here
<cyborg01> Because you cannot show me a phyisical experiment that verifies it
<AllanRandall> cyborg01: many experiments verify QM, and MWI is a logical consequence of QM as it stands (IMO).
* bioimmortal still confused
<cyborg01> There is a different... it's an interpretation and is quite unnecessary (in the sense of occams razor)
<AllanRandall> Cliff: but you would never say that anything has really travelled backward through time unless some violation of Thermodymanics occurred.
<ocsrazor> Allan - its my instinct that any Universe that has causality, will have directional self-organizing systems, and will produce consciousness
<Cliff> Here is an experiment that I think actually falisfies the MWI. It appears earlier in this sesson. and is an interesting alternative to a quantum suicide experiment. All of us are participating in this experiment whether we want to or not. In the MWI, we are progressively eliminated from all worlds in which we are not immortal. Over time, the effective number of versions of a person that live longer than a century would outnumber, by h
<AllanRandall> cyborg: this is the opinion of many, but I disagree IMO, all the other interpretations impose additional assumptions or mechanism onto the mathematics of QM,not required to explain our empirical evidence, and thus they violate Occam's razor. MWI does not. It follows from the math.
<cyborg01> Anything that's not verified by experiment is equally redundant.. feynmann: the ultimate arbitar of true is experiment
<AllanRandall> Cliff: I'm not sure how you could get any publically verifiable result from this. Most worlds would still contain the same distriution of life-spans, either way, would they not?
<Cliff> Victor Stenger discusses quantum particles travelling backwards in time in his book "Timeless Reality" It does not violate thermodynamics.
<AllanRandall> cyborg: so cut out all the redundant unverifiable features from an interpretation and what are you left with? Many worlds. You cannot use Occam to get rid of logical and mathematical consequence of a theory, just because they are not in themselves testable.
<Cliff> The idea is that the versions that live over a century would continue to multiply and the ones that end will cease to multiply.
<AllanRandall> Cliff: I think he probably is using "backward through time" in a different sense.
<AllanRandall> Cliff: so let's be clear. What would you expect to see in a typical universe after 300 years given (1) MWI is true and (2) MWI is untrue?
<bioimmortal> IMO the same thing :]
<AllanRandall> One can say in the classical wave theory of light that light trvels backwards through time, and forwards, but the result of the various interferences is only a causal effect forward. If that is the sort of backwards through time he means, I don't object.
<AllanRandall> bioimm.: I tend to agree, but will wait for Cliff's response.
<Cliff> The point in time is crucial because of the technology factor. Before technology radically extends life spans, major miracles are required to keep a person alive long enough to benefit from life extension technology. A really good major miracle would keep the person in good physical and mental health. In some worlds, radical life extension technology would have happened centuries ago. In other worlds, it would be far in the future.
<John_Venturevile> Cliff, on some worlds could random genetic mutations have allowed at least some people to live for many centuries?
<AllanRandall> So far so good,but of course, in my system, major miracles automatically disqualify a world from being physical, since there are inconsistent with stability of that universe.
<John_Venturevile> Such a development might actually slow down technological progress depending on the government and technology level
<AllanRandall> Remember: it is not enough that a world exist in the multiverse... it must be stable, and more probable than some barely consciouss dreamlike state, in order to of any consequence to us.
<ocsrazor> John - yes extreme longevity is definitely within the realm of possibility for evolution, all you need is strong selective pressure for it
<AllanRandall> Over hundreds of years, you will survive in fewer and fewer worlds. So although you will see a kind of quantum immortalizing effect, it will not be verifiable publically to others, so we cannot use it to make MWI falsifiable.
<hkhenson> Heinlein's Howard foundation
<Cliff> John: that would have the same effect as life extension technology.
<AllanRandall> ocs: I think we already have strong selective pressur. Even without life extension technology, I would expect life spans to increase greatly... the only thing is, technology will accomplish the same thing before natural adaptation has a chance to do it alone.
<bioimmortal> AllanRandall if u agree that whether MWI is true and (2) MWI is untrue is the same thing, why bother about it then?
<Cliff> What then happens to a world in which a major miracle has occurred? Does it fail to multiply into more worlds?
<ocsrazor> agreed Allan, humans already live much longer naurally than other primates, this trend would have continued, just would have taken millions of years
* OmniDo joins the chat
* OmniDo waves to all
<bioimmortal> hi OmniDo
<John_Venturevile> hello, Omni
<OmniDo> Greetings all. 1,8 : ) 
<AllanRandall> The point is that it is a logical consequence of the theory that from YOUR perspective you will continue to live in some world. The fact that it is not publically verifiable does not mean it is not true... it just means that scientific evidence for its truth will have to be less direct... through verification of the underlying theory, not direct observation of increased lifespans.
<AllanRandall> h Omni
<OmniDo> Hello AllanRandall
<BJKlein> AllanRandall, you have a PM
<BJKlein> chech the red tab above
<BJKlein> in the chat
<BJKlein> PM = Private Message
<AllanRandall> Cliff: the world in which the major miracles occured is so improbable that you can never expect to find yourself in it. A dream-like world will, at least, always be far more likely. Even if you imagein being the luck guy who quantum jumps into a major-miracle-universe in which he is immortal, you can expect to be immediately quantum jumpsed back to the dreamworld.
<AllanRandall> I will be signing off in a bit. Thanks to all for an interesting chat. I've never done this before. I hope I was not to scatter-brained in my responses... there is a lot to keep track of!
<OmniDo> I arrived too late, 14H15eh
<John_Venturevile> Allan, I hope one day you get to meet yourself from a parallel universe and compare notes
<John_Venturevile> *but not with an evil version of yourself*
<Cliff> A major miracle could be a one time event rather than a continuous occurance. As major miracles are added, the probability of the whole decreases multiplicatively. However, even this does not reduce probabilities to absolute zero and so trains of major miracles would have to exist in some line of worlds.
<John_Venturevile> so there is theoretically no upper limit to the number of universes?
<ocsrazor> Night all - I'm off too
<John_Venturevile> it seems to me there could be more "versions" of our present world than there are molecules on the planet
<John_Venturevile> night, Ocs
<OmniDo> Nite Peter
<AllanRandall> John: :-)
<John_Venturevile> take care!
<OmniDo> QM universes and multiple realities? I presume thats the discussion...
<John_Venturevile> yep
<AllanRandall> Cliff: interesting though. Email me if you wish to continue a discussion. I need to go now, however. Thanks to all!
<OmniDo> Heh, been down that line before. good thing I dont need to have the topic re explained.
<OmniDo> Catcha later AllanRandall
<BJKlein> Many thanks Allan!
<Cliff> Thanks much Allan. I'm signing off too. Bye.
<BJKlein> thanks for joining us Cliff
<AllanRandall> bye!
<BJKlein> quality discussion tonight
<BJKlein> will post to ImmInst soon




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users