Materialism and inifinte personal existence

The majority of astronomers believe that the universe will always be expanding. Given only the known universe, what would they expect to happen in ten raised to the quadrillion power years and far beyond that?

Let us begin with our current frame of reference. The universe keeps expanding. Most of the universe is empty space. However, none of that empty space is really empty at all; it is a sea of virtual particles. This is a well proven fact of quantum mechanics. After a very long time, even the most stable of particles in our present universe may decay to such an extent that they become indistinguishable from the virtual particles of empty space. However, given enough time, as time and space are measured from our current frame of reference, the sea of virtual particles will eventually expand to such an enormous volume that new universes will result from quantum-mechanical vacuum fluctuations. Since the expansion of the sea of virtual particles is unlimited, then so is the number of universes unlimited. In a minuscule fraction of those universes, every person in this universe would become duplicated by chance events. With the number of universes being unlimited, the number of chance duplications of any person is also unlimited.

Keep these six things in mind when deciding on an answer to the poll.

1. This poll is not about the truth or falsity of materialism. It is simply about a logical implication of materialism.

2. No assumption is made about the truth or falsity of the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI). MWI is just one of several alternative interpretations that agree with observations about quantum mechanical phenomena. The only theories of quantum mechanics considered here are those that are regarded as neither controversial nor speculative by the mainstream scientific community.

3. No assumption is made here concerning the present existence of anything beyond our known universe.

4. In materialism, a person is fully defined by physical characteristics. Any materialist definition of personal identity would consist of certain variables that are restricted to a very narrow range and other variables that would be permitted a wide range of variation. No sudden borderline threshold of personal identity is assumed. A materialist definition of personal identity could permit some overlap between personal identities.

5. Infinite existence of a person does not necessarily mean continuous immortality. A life could be infinite by means of an infinite number of versions of a person with finite life spans. Concerning continuity of consciousness, consider that a day of continuous consciousness is broken by a night of sleep. However, an unlimited number of universes would allow for cases of unlimited continuous life span for every person. As the life span gets longer, the number of version of a person living that long become more and more rare, but never become zero. Given an unlimited number of universes, there will always be enough universes for any given number of versions of a given person to have a length of life that exceeds any given amount.

6. By infinite, I am not referring to a specific number called infinity; I am referring to an unlimited quantity.

Important question.

I strongly disagree. With such an infinite scenario above, there will be copies of all individuals, yes... but these copies will be 'copies'... different entities in space time. While interesting, this would not equal infinite personal existence for you or me... as a copy is not as good as the original.

There must be continuity of existence in localized space and time to have real physical immortality.

I see BJKlein's point. If these random occurances lead to another identical person being created does that necessarily mean that that person carries the same consciousness or linked consciousness, I do not think so.

Nailed it on the head, BJ. Without a temporal and spatial continuum of consciousness there is no real physical immortality.

Lets consider the following hypotheticals though:

a) suppose an individual dies and has enough foresight to get his remains cryopreserved and 50 years later via the nanotechnology renaissance we can "return" him. From his point of reference he would have felt like he was in a very deep sleep (we think). From an observer's point of reference the temporal continuum has been interrupted.

b) suppose the same individual, 100 years from now and following his "return" has the foresight to undergo a 3-dimensional molecular resolution level scan of his brain so that his unique neural pattern, down to the last receptor of each dendrite is stored. An unfortunate fusion accident at his work results in him turning into plasma. But thanks to his stored pattern and stem cells he is "returned". From his perspective his last recollection is just before the brain scan. From an observer's frame of reference we now have a break in both temporal and spatial continuum.

c) 20 years later, the same guy goes missing whilst hiking on Mars and because his adoring family think he is dead they get a court order to "return" him. A few years later the "original" guy who actually went on an indefinite sabbatical without telling anyone is found sipping pina coladas in Waikiki beach. From an observer's frame of reference we now have a divergence of the original continuum into two separate spatial continuums running temporally parallel as two unique individuals based on their personal frames of reference and interaction with the universe.

Does each copy of the guy have a linked perception from his frame of reference to the other? Nope they are unique individuals. Does each guy think he is the original? Yep.

What does it mean? Consciousness is an entirely subjective concept. For all we know we're not even the same person from the night before we slept.

Important question.

I strongly disagree.  With such an infinite scenario above, there will be copies of all individuals, yes... but these copies will be 'copies'... different entities in space time.  While interesting, this would not equal infinite personal existence for you or me... as a copy is not as good as the original.

There must be continuity of existence in localized space and time to have real physical immortality.

My reasoning was based on a premise of materialist philosophy and the poll concerns a logical implication of that premise.

I used the word "infinite existence" in place of "immortality" in the poll question because a person who dies is obviously mortal.

Suppose your are sleeping in your bed at night. During a deep and dreamless sleep, suppose your life is instanteaneously ended, the original is removed from the bed, and a perfect physical copy of you is substituted in the bed. The copy wakes up fully conscious with all memories, thoughts, emotions, and personality exactly as they were in the original. Neither your original, your copy, nor anyone significant to you ever knows that anything out of the ordinary happened during that night. Would you say your life was over?

Suppose you manage to reach your trillionth birthday in perfect health, without ever being sick or injured a single day in your life. However, you have gradually changed over the years. From one day to the next, there was very, very little difference in you, but a trilllion years of very gradual change has added up to a radical change. After a trillion years, you have absolutely no memory of what you were like back in this time and have a radically different personality. Would you say that continuity of existence in localised space and time has preserved your identity?

________________________________________________

Being cooped up in this universe for a trillion years can give you quite a crick in the neck.

Edited by Clifford Greenblatt, 22 July 2004 - 11:14 AM.

Suppose your are sleeping in your bed at night. During a deep and dreamless sleep, suppose your life is instanteaneously ended, the original is removed from the bed, and a perfect physical copy of you is substituted in the bed. The copy wakes up fully conscious with all memories, thoughts, emotions, and personality exactly as they were in the original. Neither your original, your copy, nor anyone significant to you ever knows that anything out of the ordinary happened during that night. Would you say your life was over?

The hypothetical suffers practical impossibility issues. Nothing happens instantaneously.. everything happens with some degree of change over time... but to answer your question, yes, 'my' life would in effect be completely over. The copy's life would have replaced mine.

Suppose you manage to reach your trillionth birthday in perfect health, without ever being sick or injured a single day in your life. However, you have gradually changed over the years. From one day to the next, there was very, very little difference in you, but a trilllion years of very gradual change has added up to a radical change. After a trillion years, you have absolutely no memory of what you were like back in this time and have a radically different personality. Would you say that continuity of existence in localised space and time has preserved your identity?

Yes. This qualifies as physical immortality because my entity would have sustained continuinty over time.

Clifford, as a side note, a person can be fully defined by physicalism, somewhat a step beyond materialism to take invisible features of the universe into account such as nomological forces and so forth.

To address your original thesis, I would strongly agree given that your inference seems valid. You make no assumptions about whether what-it-is-like-to-be-me is preserved. So yes, if all you claim is that I represent M_{i = 1} and each one of my subsequent, or otherwise “overlapping,” copies is signified by M_{i = i + 1} where each identity possesses a unique what-it-is-like-to-be-me-ness.

But your second post to this thread makes a totally different assumption, that all of my copies, including me, are M_{i = 1}, which I must assume now that this is implicit in your original post, although I can’t see how if understood as a stand-alone. Taking the second into consideration, I voted "strongly disagree." I’m no longer M_{i = 1}; I’m M_{i > 1}.

Edited by Nate Barna, 22 July 2004 - 09:41 PM.

The hypothetical suffers practical impossibility issues.  Nothing happens instantaneously.. everything happens with some degree of change over time... but to answer your question, yes, 'my' life would in effect be completely over.  The copy's life would have replaced mine. 


Yes.  This qualifies as physical immortality because my entity would have sustained continuinty over time.

Your comments are quite valuable in helping me to begin to understand your concept of the fundamental principles of personhood. I still have a long way to go, but this is a beginning. If I understand correctly, you see localised space-time continuity as a necessary condition for existence as a person. Once localised space-time continuity is broken, it is impossible for the person to ever exist again.

Like Prometheus, I would be interested in the implications of this necessary condition for cryonics. However, I will not go so far as to consider a person being fused into plasma. A person in cryonic suspension retains a static order of physical building blocks, but the dynamic processes of the mind have been discontinued. The highly complex and dynamic relationships between cells and messenger chemicals have also been discontinued. With present cryonic technology, the physical building blocks become quickly damaged, despite best efforts to preserve them as much as possible. With highly futuristic technology, the first task would be to repair the damage to the building blocks. The repair may require a huge army of nanobots to enter every cell to do major repair work. A method of suspended animation would have to be very advanced to allow the repaired cells to remain alive without the benefit of the normal cooperative relationship of cells and messenger chemicals in a highly advanced network structure. A means would have to be devised to safely start up the system when sufficient repairs have been made for network functions to be gradually restored. With the present day state of the art of cryonics, do you think that sufficient continuity is maintained to meet your necessary condition for continued existence of the same person?

Clifford, as a side note, a person can be fully defined by physicalism, somewhat a step beyond materialism to take invisible features of the universe into account such as nomological forces and so forth.

To address your original thesis, I would strongly agree given that your inference seems valid. You make no assumptions about whether what-it-is-like-to-be-me is preserved. So yes, if all you claim is that I represent M_{i = 1} and each one of my subsequent, or otherwise “overlapping,” copies is signified by M_{i = i + 1} where each identity possesses a unique what-it-is-like-to-be-me-ness.

But your second post to this thread makes a totally different assumption, that all of my copies, including me, are M_{i = 1}, which I must assume now that this is implicit in your original post, although I can’t see how if understood as a stand-alone. Taking the second into consideration, I voted "strongly disagree." I’m no longer M_{i = 1}; I’m M_{i > 1}.

I think your concern is with the idea of several versions of a person being regarded as the same person. Of course, version 10 of a person would not be version 15 of that person. However, the same issue must be considered for a space-time continuous person. Your immediate past self is being continually annihilated and replaced by your present self. The ten minute ago you is not the present you. The present version of yourself is linked to the past versions of yourself by your memories. A chance duplicate of yourself in a distant universe could be linked by exactly the same memories.

Standing on the sholders...



"The assumption of reductionism throughout the following can summarized as this: My identity, survival, or continuity can be understood as reducible to certain other facts; these are facts about psychological connectedness and continuity." -- Max More, The Diachronic Self: Identity, Continuity, Transformation; Ch.1: Causal Conditions for Continuity

A person in cryonic suspension retains a static order of physical building blocks, but the dynamic processes of the mind have been discontinued. The highly complex and dynamic relationships between cells and messenger chemicals have also been discontinued.

Another important question.. but I think answered simply:

Cold = slowed.. but Cold does not = changed.

Meaning that when tissues and cells are lowered in temperature (liquid nitrogen) this doesn't somehow change the information. The material is still there, and the material can theoretically be restored to serve as the architect of life. Of course, only sufficiently advanced (small) reanimation tools (nanotech) will be able to repair the inevitable freeze morph.

So, you are right in that the "dynamic processes" of the mind are changed, but these processes are NOT discontinued. There is still some movement (continuity), however small, even at the lowest temps.

With the present day state of the art of cryonics, do you think that sufficient continuity is maintained to meet your necessary condition for continued existence of the same person?

Yes. As implied in my above answer, I think most currently advanced cryonics procedures sufficiently preserve enough information so that future tech will be able to revive patients to good health.

Cliifford you said, Like Prometheus, I would be interested in the implications of this necessary condition for cryonics. However, I will not go so far as to consider a person being fused into plasma.

If you read my post carefully, being fused into plasma has to to with a fanciful description of our hero's accident that results in his entire physical substrate becoming annihilated. It serves as an example of absolute destruction in which it is only by means of salvaging his stored brain pattern and DNA that he becomes returned with all memories intact up until the time of the "brain scan". It is meant to be contrasted with the state of cryopreservation in which the physical substrate of self (the body) still exists and has its pattern preserved against entropy.

Consequently the consciousness continuum either becomes interrupted or ceases to exist altogether depending on your frame of reference. It begs the following two questions:

a) At any point in time is our awareness and sense of self simply a function of our historic memory collective interacting with the sensory data in the present?

b) What is the necessary physical substrate required to enable the pattern of consciousness to exist?


(Death by plasma fusion is meant for illustrative purposes only and in no way associated with the technology of cryopreservation. )

Some further thoughts:

I underestimated just how challenging the concepts that emerge from this discussion really are (perhaps an indication of how pedestrian I am in matters philosophical). The more I attempt to reduce the elements of consciousness by analytical methods, the more disturbed I become by the results.

The result of my ruminations is that we are the dynamic library of our experiences, our dynamic sensory stream and an ongoing consolidation of the library modulated by the sensory stream. I further analyze by removing each of the three components to see what is essential.

If we remove our sensory stream by total sensory deprivation we get an ongoing consolidation of the library without the much needed external cues that seem to navigate and provide purpose to the direction of the ongoing consolidation, thus the well known effects of hallucinations, loss of time and altered state of consciousness. But despite complete sensory deprivation the sense of self and awareness, even though now totally inwardly directed, remains. Thus the sensory stream is non-essential.

If we remove our library and ability to record information then we can only act on the present sensory stream with no internal frame of reference. I think in such a state self awareness is altered so fundamentally that there is no self. The library is essential.

If we remove the ability to consolidate or act on the library and new perceptions coming in, then we are simply a storage device without any sense of self. The ability to consolidate the library is essential.

The key, it seems, is the convergence of the library, or sum of our experiences, and the ability to act on that library.

How does this relate to a sense of self in the context of consciousness survival? It appears that consciousness can always be fooled by the contents of the library because a sophisticated enough memory construct will always appear real.

How does this relate to infinite personal existence? From a linear perspective, libraries can be linked just like accumulated memories but from a parallel perspective each self is limited by its sensory capability and cannot be linked.

What does this say about the personal continuum? Each self construct thinks it is the original self insofar as it is concerned - it has continued to exist for as long at it can remember (based on the library).

Now here is where I get stuck: I try to think of what happens to the "orginal" conscious following a "gap" in consciousness in the following pyramid of levels of consideration:

1 sleep
2 knock out (as in boxing ring)
3 general anesthetic
4 coma
5 brain death followed by resuscitation (i.e. 30 minutes under frozen water)
6 cryopreservation followed by nanotech facilitated resuscitation *
7 complete physical annihilation followed by recreation of molecular resolution level CNS pattern *

* obviously purely speculative

I get as far as 6, but then start feeling that I'm on shaky ground.

I am forced to conclude that if 7 is possible that consciousness as we know it and the concept of its continuum is a subjective illusion.

Meaning that when tissues and cells are lowered in temperature (liquid nitrogen) this doesn't somehow change the information.

Yes.  As implied in my above answer, I think most currently advanced cryonics procedures sufficiently preserve enough information so that future tech will be able to revive patients to good health.

Here, you are talking about preservation of sufficient information. Chance duplication in an unlimited number of universes can also preserve sufficient information. Chance duplication is not limited to the defining characteristics. With an unlimited number of universes, far more information about the person can be duplicated than can possibly be preserved by cryonics. A person’s life in universe X and universe Y could be identical to an extremely high resolution until any given point. After the divergence point, the person in universe X could die and the person in universe Y could continue to live and be very healthy. The version in universe Y can continue, with extremely high precision, all of the same memories, intentions, dispositions, beliefs, abilities, desires, values, and projects that the version in universe X had at the divergence point.

Edited by Clifford Greenblatt, 23 July 2004 - 11:07 AM.

Chance duplication can spawn an identical clone but that clone would be isolated in its own universe - the information cannot be carried across therefore no preservation per se takes place. Also even if the duplication were to occur in incremental chronological steps with all history being identical to the old clone you would still be bound by the lifetime limitation of the the new clone in any case. Thus the conservation of information would not extend a single lifespan.

I am forced to conclude that if 7 is possible that consciousness as we know it and the concept of its continuum is a subjective illusion.

And most materialist would agree with you! Great post by the way. [thumb]

The result of my ruminations is that we are the dynamic library of our experiences, our dynamic sensory stream and an ongoing consolidation of the library modulated by the sensory stream. I further analyze by removing each of the three components to see what is essential.

[1]If we remove our sensory stream by total sensory deprivation we get an ongoing consolidation of the library without the much needed external cues that seem to navigate and provide purpose to the direction of the ongoing consolidation, thus the well known effects of hallucinations, loss of time and altered state of consciousness. But despite complete sensory deprivation the sense of self and awareness, even though now totally inwardly directed, remains. Thus the sensory stream is non-essential.

[2]If we remove our library and ability to record information then we can only act on the present sensory stream with no internal frame of reference. I think in such a state self awareness is altered so fundamentally that there is no self. The library is essential.

[3]If we remove the ability to consolidate or act on the library and new perceptions coming in, then we are simply a storage device without any sense of self. The ability to consolidate the library is essential.

The key, it seems, is the convergence of the library, or sum of our experiences, and the ability to act on that library

[1]Agree - This is obviously true by your examples
[2]Agree - This is the interesting one. The brain now has no information nor is sensory information being added to it. The brain can take information and use it to create more information. Here the brain has no information to work with. So it could not reason that it exists and therefore could not be conscious.
[3]Agree - Memory alone can not yield consciousness

What does this say about the personal continuum? Each self construct thinks it is the original self insofar as it is concerned - it has continued to exist for as long at it can remember (based on the library).

Now here is where I get stuck: I try to think of what happens to the "orginal" conscious following a "gap" in consciousness in the following pyramid of levels of consideration:

1 sleep
2 knock out (as in boxing ring)
3 general anesthetic
4 coma
5 brain death followed by resuscitation (i.e. 30 minutes under frozen water)
6 cryopreservation followed by nanotech facilitated resuscitation *
7 complete physical annihilation followed by recreation of molecular resolution level CNS pattern *

* obviously purely speculative

I get as far as 6, but then start feeling that I'm on shaky ground.

I think the problems may come from not taking a truly materialistic view of the world. The whole idea of 'original' conscious is the problem. Consciousness stops existing when you sleep and comes into existence when you wake. Consciousness is just the result of biology - there is no 'original conscious' idea etched into the universe. Imagine people didn't need to breath when they sleep (fictional). Breathing would end when they went to sleep and begin when they woke up. There would be no 'original' breathing that needs to continue to exist. Breathing would stop existing, breathing would start - consciousness stops, consciousness starts, that's all there is to it. No continuity in either case no matter what happens to the body. It would matter not that the 'lung structure' was kept in good shape constantly through the sleep. Consciousness ends in all 7 cases, consciousness starts up in all 7. All 'you' are is a brain realizing it exists at some time.

Beautifully said, Chub. I agree. Consciousness is a fuzzy word used to describe a complex process in a material universe that just so happens to be in our heads (brains).

Replace the word 'consciousness' with the phrase, 'interesting interaction of molecules and atoms' and you may start to see things differently... and perhaps a little less puzzling.

I fear most of us give undue importance to the workings of our brains... probably because we all have one to ponder over with... when in reality, as prometheus has said, the brain is only a library.. or perhaps a hard drive.

Chance duplication can spawn an identical clone but that clone would be isolated in its own universe - the information cannot be carried across therefore no preservation per se takes place. Also even if the duplication were to occur in incremental chronological steps with all history being identical to the old clone you would still be bound by the lifetime limitation of the the new clone in any case. Thus the conservation of information would not extend a single lifespan.

Cryonics is an effort to diverge the course of a fresh corpse from progressive decay to a possible future of restored life. Duplicates in different universes would most likely live very nearly exactly the same life, but there is some convergence and divergence. After being maximally converged at some point of life, the duplicates could begin to diverge significantly. One version may die and another version may remain alive and well. Instead of dying at some point in life and then becoming cryonically preserved, a duplicate could simply take an alternate path of remaining healthy. No matter how long the life span, a healthy path exists. The number of duplicates will become increasing more rare as they get older, but an unlimited number of universes assures that they will be infinite in number, no matter how old they get.

That still does not deal with the fundamental constraints of memory during a limited lifespan - if as you suggest infinite personal experience is achievable by a virtual "hopping" from one incarnation to another you would need to accumulate the life experience of all the individuals before (or at least a number of them). The present individual would still be limited by his life experience. Where do the memories of the individuals before go, and how would they be reconciled within the experience of his limited lifespan?

This breaks unless lifespan is increased or the appearance of lifespan is increased by memory constructs containing an extended history that transcends the natural lifespan of the individual.

That still does not deal with the fundamental constraints of memory during a limited lifespan - if as you suggest infinite personal experience is achievable by a virtual "hopping" from one incarnation to another you would need to accumulate the life experience of all the individuals before (or at least a number of them). The present individual would still be limited by his life experience. Where do the memories of the individuals before go, and how would they be reconciled within the experience of his limited lifespan?

This breaks unless lifespan is increased or the appearance of lifespan is increased by memory constructs containing an extended history that transcends the natural lifespan of the individual.

In my last post, I showed that, in addition to finite life spans, every person has an infinite number of infinite life spans. Only one hop is necessary to take a person from any universe in which he dies to a universe in which he never dies. The hop occurs at the point of maximum convergence. You can make the requirements for convergence as demanding as you like, short of absolute zero error, and there will be an infinite number of universes for any person to hop into immortality with a single leap from any point in his life.

Edited by Clifford Greenblatt, 24 July 2004 - 12:18 AM.

Even with the assumption of a set of infinite universes within which would exist infinite states of each supersting (the present theoretical building block of the universe) across all possible temporal trajectories - which essentially means every possible permutation of anything occurring has its own universe (a universe for every superstring state for every possible timeline) being the only way to mathematically describe your assertion - and let me say at this stage it very hard to conceptualize - there is no mechanism by which when a person dies in this universe his identity will find itself in one of these parallel universes most close close to ours but where he has not died yet. In this universe he is dead and remains so.

Without such a mechanism your hypothesis is disproved because there is no infinite personal existence for a person that has died in this universe, only an endless set of reflection permutations throughout your conjectured infinite universes. I suspect also to exist a "law" of information conservation between such universes whereby information cannot be transfered from one universe to another.

Logic is the art of taking an opinion, declaring it fact and using it to prove you're right.

Some interesting concepts are presented here and I wish to offer an alternative point of view.

I exist.

Do I exist in a material sense, like this computer or the chair I'm sitting in? I have to agree that indeed I do.

Of course using the computer as analogy, I exist as the OS of this material shell.

Is my existance tied to this shell? I don't think so. No more than the existance of Windows is tied to PC I'm using.

Stored information is independent of the medium. The meaning assigned to writing in a book is independent of the ink and paper. Information on a computer is independent of the disk or chip used to retain it.

If I am to exist separated from my material form, that which I am must be stored in some media.

There has been much anecdotal evidence that a media exists to retain and prevent our data from decaying. Some of the descriptions involve matrixes of energy. (logical since we store information in matrices of energy).

The pursuit of quantum physics has shown that the universe is not as it appears, but rather that our perception of the universe is severly limited, making it resonable to assume there is a mechanism to hold information for long periods of time.

So I, as an individual have existed, do exist and expect to continue existing.

I can't prove it any more than you can prove that conciousness ceases with sleep. (Actually I thought it was proved pretty conclusively the the mind works pretty steady even during sleep. Lord knows mine is going a mile a minute while i'm nodding off writing this).

Not trying to prove anything. I fact I don't care to prove it.

Just some thoughts.


D

Even with the assumption of a set of infinite universes within which would exist infinite states of each supersting (the present theoretical building block of the universe) across all possible temporal trajectories -  which essentially means every possible permutation of anything occurring has its own universe (a universe for every superstring state for every possible timeline) being the only way to mathematically describe your assertion - and let me say at this stage it very hard to conceptualize - there is no mechanism by which when a person dies in this universe his identity will find itself in one of these parallel universes most close close to ours but where he has not died yet. In this universe he is dead and remains so.

Without such a mechanism your hypothesis is disproved because there is no infinite personal existence for a person that has died in this universe, only an endless set of reflection permutations throughout your conjectured infinite universes. I suspect also to exist a "law" of information conservation between such universes whereby information cannot be transfered from one universe to another.

No information is ever transferred from one universe to another. The idea of chance duplication is not transfer of information but of recurrence of information. The full set of information that composes a person, if lost in one universe, is preserved not by transfer to but by recurrence of the information in another universe. Also, there was no conjecture or assumption of any other universes existing at this time. All the other universes are results of vacuum fluctuations in the far future that increase in probability as the sea of virtual particles continues to expand from this universe.

Here is a highly relevant analogy to show how information recurs without being transferred. Consider the infinite sequence of decimal digits for the square root of two. If you could look far enough into the sequence, you would find the first trillion digits of the square root of three. Do not attempt to find even the first such occurrence because the entire known universe does not contain enough atoms to build a computer or calculator big enough to search for it. However, those trillion digits are truly there. In fact, they are there an infinite number of times. The mean separation between them is ten raised to the trillionth power digits. You could get much more demanding and require the first ten raised to the quadrillionth power digits of the square root of three within the square root of two. Now, the mean separation between occurrences becomes an enormous ten raised to the ten raised to the quadrillionth power digits. Still, it happens an infinite number of times. No matter how many digits of the square root of three you require, they will always occur an infinite number of times within the square root of two.

You are talking about sets. The set of numbers found in one sequence of numbers exist in another set. We see this every time we perform a similarity search based on a sequence we have cloned in the lab and wish to see the degree of conservation with what is known to determine function. The degree of conservation (similarity) in DNA between the mouse and human is 98%, yet they are light years apart from other considerations in hundreds of ways. Information exists on multiple levels of consideration. You still have yet to prove the personal aspect of infinite existence unless you intend to maintain that an infinite number of fragments of a persons memory across infinite universes in infinite incarnations of that person constitute infinite existence. Which to me, unless a connectedness can occur across those fragments, does not.

You are talking about sets. The set of numbers found in one sequence of numbers exist in another set. We see this every time we perform a similarity search based on a sequence we have cloned in the lab and wish to see the degree of conservation with what is known to determine function. The degree of conservation (similarity) in DNA between the mouse and human is 98%, yet they are light years apart from other considerations in hundreds of ways. Information exists on multiple levels of consideration. You still have yet to prove the personal aspect of infinite existence unless you intend to maintain that an infinite number of fragments of a persons memory across infinite universes in infinite incarnations of that person constitute infinite existence. Which to me, unless a connectedness can occur across those fragments, does not.

My numerical example was one dimensional. The analogy can be expanded to multiple levels of considerations by expanding the number of dimensions. Instead of a single sequence of the square root of two, suppose we stack the square root sequences for a set of P prime numbers and do the same for a different, second set of P prime numbers. We then slide the first N columns of the second stack along the first stack until a perfect match occurs. The match will occur an infinite number of times no matter how big P and N are. This is a two dimensional analogy. The analogy could be further extended to any number of dimensions with the same conclusion of infinite recurrences.

Perhaps my analogy is causing some confusion because subsequences of an infinite sequence are never the whole infinite sequence. However, I was not trying to prove infinite recurrence of an absolutely infinite resolution but only an infinite recurrence of unlimited finite resolution.

In my reasoning, the fragments will far outnumber the complete unit. However, the complete unit is assured to occur an infinite number of times. If you demand that every detail of your life be duplicated from birth to this day in twelve dimensional physics with a resolution of a trillion orders of magnitude below the Planck scale, then an unlimited number of universes will assure this will happen an unlimited number of times. If we assume nothing beyond this known universe, it will take an awful long time before the first recurrence, but, given unlimited time, there will be unlimited recurrences.

The immortality aspect enters in as your recurrent lives diverge from where you are now. You may be mortal in this occurrence of your life, but, for any length of life, there will be an unlimited number of recurrences diverging from what you are now in which your life is continued on to that length.

Here is an interesting note about information in my inductive reasoning about the future as viewed from a materialist philosophy. Globally, information is continually lost as the sea of virtual particles expands. Eventually, we could say that there will be practically no information on the global level. Locally, there will always be zones of very high information Local zones of greater and greater information content will grow in number as the sea of virtual particles continues to expand.

Edited by Clifford Greenblatt, 24 July 2004 - 02:02 PM.

[quote]
Also, there was no conjecture or assumption of any other universes existing at this time. All the other universes are results of vacuum fluctuations in the far future that increase in probability as the sea of virtual particles continues to expand from this universe.[quote]

Cliff, you state that multiple universes existing simultaneously is a conjecture or assumption. What strikes me as an assumption is that the orthogonal dimension of time exists when discussing the potential connectivity of multiple universes. From my perspective, I do not view alternative universes as existing in the past or future in relation to our own universe. In fact, I don't even view other universes as existing in parallel time to our universe. The inference of time, when discussing such cosmological scenarios, is conceptually incorrect.

Clifford, if you keep on adding so many layers of infinite possibilities, then my friend, anything is possible. But the fact remains that in this universe, bound as we are at present by our technological limitations, you, I and the rest, remain constrained in this space time continuum. If you know otherwise, let me know.

Cliff, you state that multiple universes existing simultaneously is a conjecture or assumption.  What strikes me as an assumption is that the orthogonal dimension of time exists when discussing the potential connectivity of multiple universes.  From my perspective, I do not view alternative universes as existing in the past or future in relation to our own universe.  In fact, I don't even view other universes as existing in parallel time to our universe.  The inference of time, when discussing such cosmological scenarios, is conceptually incorrect.

I discussed this in my original post. The conjecture or assumption that I avoided is that of anything other than the know universe existing at this time from our frame of reference. Once a frame of reference is established, then a continuing measure of time becomes and remains meaningful as long as there is physical activity to dynamically maintain the definition of that frame of reference. Even if the most stable of particles decay into the sea of virtual particles, just the physical activity of the sea of virtual particles alone is sufficient to dynamically maintain the definition of the original frame of reference. All that happens in the future can be measured from the original frame of reference.

I mentioned multiple universes arising from quantum-mechanical vacuum fluctuations in the future because it simply follows from the laws of physics in a sufficiently large sea of virtual particles. When the sea becomes sufficiently large, the process of universes becomes as certain as the process of heat spontaneously flowing from a hot object to a cold object. However, it is not essential to have multiple universes to obtain unlimited recurrence of physical structures. An unlimited expansion of a single universe would accomplish the same thing as new particles arise from quantum-mechanical vacuum fluctuations.

Taking this further, not even an unlimited expansion of a single universe is essential for unlimited recurrence of physical structures. An oscillating universe would accomplish this as well. However, the limitations of an oscillating universe would present a problem for a space-time continuous immortality. As far as I am aware, the majority or astronomers today agree that the universe is not oscillating but is ever expanding with no tendency to ever stop expanding.

But the fact remains that in this universe, bound as we are at present by our technological limitations, you, I and the rest, remain constrained in this space time continuum. If you know otherwise, let me know. 

This is true as regards the versions of ourselves in this place. The probability of our being continuously immortal in our present version is essentially zero, even with the most clever of technological advances. We may be able to persist for trillions of years, but entropy would eventually take its toll on all of our best efforts.

Now consider a corpse which is kept fresh cryonically for ten thousand years. Technology is finally advanced enough to safely revive the corpse. The preserved person will wake up in a very different world. The only thing familiar may be a teddy bear that was preserved for memorabilia. His new world will be highly discontinuous with his memories.

Next, consider a person in this place and time who is fifty years old and in very good health. The person dies suddenly in a serious accident. In a future time, far too distant to begin to describe in words, there is a person who’s entire life is physically identical down to a resolution of a trillion orders of magnitude beneath the Planck scale. I imagine that this kind of resolution is many orders of magnitude beyond necessity, but when you have unlimited space-time to work with, you can afford to go to outrageously conservative extremes. This extreme accuracy of identity holds until one month before the accident and then the second version slowly diverges from the first. The divergence is sufficient that the second version avoids the deadly accident. The first version will be oblivious to the fact that he has died. The second version will continue to live, oblivious to the fact that the first version died. From the view of materialist philosophy, there can be no way for the first version to feel like anything different from what the second version feels like at any point prior to the moment of divergence. From the perspective of conscious experience, the life of the first version is seamlessly continued in the life of the second version at month before the fatal accident of the first version.

Although the probability of immortality is essentially zero for any given version, immortality is obtained by unlimited opportunities for future versions to seamlessly continue from mortal versions. The surviving versions become more rare as life span increases, but their numbers remain unlimited as time is unlimited. None of the versions that die consciously experience their state of death. Their continuation versions consciously experience a continuation of their lives.

Edited by Clifford Greenblatt, 26 July 2004 - 08:57 AM.