brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 10:27 pm
I know. Neither are privileged, though, so they are both equally YOU. You can't distinguish future branches as one being yourself and one not being so... unless one crosses some character threshold that you would reject, but that's another issue entirely (more like the question of when a wolf stops being a wolf and starts being a dog; it's an issue of categorization).
They are not privileged according to the interpretation, but one clearly is according to my experience, so that just doesn't agree with the part on equality. Or in other words, if they were both equal, there would be no way to distinguish them, but here I am
You are right that I can't distinguish future branches with respect to "where I will be", or rather where my conscious will be, but clearly I can distinguish the partial branch in which I currently sit from all other splits that occurred till now. For example I'm in the branch, where Kennedy was killed, so I'm not in any branch in which Kennedy survived or there was no attempt at his life. That asymmetry shouldn't appear if the evolution of the wave function is deterministic.
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 10:27 pm
Or equally, if you prefer, neither is you because you don't exist in the way you presume yourself to. Much like a Christian is not actually a God-endowed soul, and in so far as he or she identifies his or her existential self as
that, that self doesn't exist.
I see the other way around. If someone tells me that I exist in particular way, but it doesn't agrees with my experience, or worse, that there are aspects of my existence beyond my or anyone's reach, but described in specific way, I don't buy it. Be it equal selfs in inaccessible universes or God-endowed soul. I can't even buy, because such an idea has no reflection in my mind. We can't talk sense about things that are unreachable for our perception. it's like in some variations on NTT - would you deem yourself X if you hadn't the ability to deem? For me it borders nonsense right now, I really try to see other perspectives, but every time I try to entertain the idea that there are other mkms that are equally me, I see, that first I would have to ignore the activity of my own conscious which makes the difference between perceived me and other "mes".
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 10:27 pm
The same thing I mean when I say any arbitrary inanimate object is in all of those universes. I don't think consciousness is special.
And yet you too make this claim having no access to the rest of your equal selfs. Inanimate objects can't testify and for some reason consciousness is much more likely to cause a collapse of the wave function (apparent or real).
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 10:27 pm
Then instead of making an assertion "inaccuracy", it would have been better to just ask what that means, and explain why you think it doesn't make sense. It may or may not have been accurate.
Sometimes I like to start with a bold statement and see where it goes. Consider it skipping the part "I think that (...)". We should probably say it each time we don't express facts in some formal structure, so we drop it altogether. Plus, it cost me time and thoughts to come up with some previous posts which apparently didn't deserve response, so I became a little bit more
brutal brief
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 10:27 pm
I'm not really invested in the conversation, I'm just asking you not to personally make criticisms like that which you admit to not understanding.
You invested time, just like me, and time is a limited resource. Is claiming that other claim is inaccurate personal? Do you or Cirion take it personally?
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 10:27 pm
That's fine. But if your position is simply that you don't understand something, please be careful about making strong criticisms against people who don't share that position and telling them their understandings are incorrect.
Where have I made it personal?
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 10:27 pm
It's like saying there's a circle in two universes, and asking which one got to keep pi as the ratio of its circumference to diameter. Why does only one get pi? Why would pi need to choose a universe to be in?
Clearly, superposition of ideas is not controversial, ideas of circles don't even have to be the same, as long, as a proper communication is achieved. The same with pi, though in some universes pi, as defined above, may not be the same. Anyway, physics deals with physical objects, not mathematical objects or ideas in general.
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 10:27 pm
When two universes diverge, each holds an identical version of a particular conscious
pattern, and they diverge over time with different experiences. They both are and remain you, until such a point as one of them diverges too far from the you-ness that defines you. If one becomes a mass murderer, you can say that one is no longer you, for example, as a matter of existential definition: this one has become another kind of person.
So if I understand you correctly, these "equal selfs" are just "identical" copies of me with shared history and then they proceed on their own?
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 11:48 pm
@mkm
Do you think there’s a rigorous way to differentiate between consciousnesses beyond the parameters it or others arbitrarily define it with?
I fear I don't understand the question. I'll say something and see where it goes. In physics and QM specifically concepts of observer, measurement and such are crucial, especially if we want to collect the most reliable data, we try to be as delicate as possible, to be as independent observer as possible. With conscious is that problem, that subject and observer cannot be separated. If you put a conscious mind into a box it won't become a Shrodinger's cat.