<div dir="ltr">The brain, like any living thing, adds and removes particles over time. To consume (add) and excrete (remove) is part of the definition of life.</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 9:41 AM Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div dir="auto"><John: Poincaré's Recurrence Theorem says any dynamical system composed of a finite number of particles (as the human brain is) will, given sufficient time, return to its original state, however I wouldn't consider just repeating the same identical thing over and over again to be an afterlife because repeating an event an infinite number of times and doing it just once would be subjectively identical. And subjectivity is the most important thing in the universe, or at least it is in my subjective opinion. But if you could keep on increasing the number of particles, that is to say if your brain kept getting bigger, then you could keep on having novel experiences until you ran out of particles to add. ></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Poincaré’s eternal return universe would be a repetitive closed loop without novelty as you say. It would be a loop because in classical mechanics different phase space paths don’t intersect (if they did, one present would have multiple futures), so if two paths intersect once they are one and the same path.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Palmer says that the universe will return to a state that is arbitrarily close (not identical) to any previous state. In his theory, inspired by fractal and chaos maths, the universe will eventually (after a loooong time) return to a state very close (arbitrarily close) to its current state. And then again and again on new paths in the fractal invariant set.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But there are variations, and then other variations ever and ever again, so it is not the same one life over and over, and there are real subjective experiences forever. And you keep meeting new versions of your loved ones forever! To me, this is an emotionally satisfying concept of afterlife. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On 2022. Nov 10., Thu at 15:23, John Clark <<a href="mailto:johnkclark@gmail.com" target="_blank">johnkclark@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default"><span style="color:rgb(64,64,64);font-family:Spectral,serif,-apple-system,"system-ui","Segoe UI",Roboto,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif,"Apple Color Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji","Segoe UI Symbol"">On </span><a href="https://www.turingchurch.com/p/fractal-chaos-meets-quantum-mechanics" style="font-family:Spectral,serif,-apple-system,"system-ui","Segoe UI",Roboto,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif,"Apple Color Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji","Segoe UI Symbol"" target="_blank">https://www.turingchurch.com/p/fractal-chaos-meets-quantum-mechanics</a> <span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">Giulio Prisco wrote:</span></div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><span style="color:rgb(64,64,64);font-family:Spectral,serif,-apple-system,"system-ui","Segoe UI",Roboto,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif,"Apple Color Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji","Segoe UI Symbol""><i><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>This is a deterministic loop, but the geometry of the IS is not computable.</i></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4">I agree with that<span class="gmail_default">. </span> </font></div><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><span style="color:rgb(64,64,64);font-family:Spectral,serif,-apple-system,"system-ui","Segoe UI",Roboto,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif,"Apple Color Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji","Segoe UI Symbol""> <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:19px">> </span><i></i></span><i>“In this sense,” </i>says Palmer, <i>“we are not mindless automata.”</i></span></blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4">We are certainly not mindless but we are automata, although we are the type of automata in which the only way to know what we will do is to watch it and see, we can't even know for sure what we ourselves will do until we actually do it. It's good thing too because the only alternative to being an automata is being a roulette wheel.</font><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><i><span style="color:rgb(64,64,64);font-family:Spectral,serif,-apple-system,"system-ui","Segoe UI",Roboto,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif,"Apple Color Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji","Segoe UI Symbol""><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>This, according to Palmer, helps make sense of quantum weirdness. Each point in the IS is, Palmer says, <b>“a synthesis of everything that is, has been and will be.” </b></span><span style="color:rgb(64,64,64);font-family:Spectral,serif,-apple-system,"system-ui","Segoe UI",Roboto,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif,"Apple Color Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji","Segoe UI Symbol"">My interpretation of “Each point in the set is a synthesis of everything that is, has been and will be”</span></i></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4">If that were true<span class="gmail_default"> then </span>I don't see <span class="gmail_default">how </span>Science could exist,<span class="gmail_default"> I don't even see </span>how we could make any successful predictions at all because you'd have to understand everything before you c<span class="gmail_default">ould </span>understand anything.<span class="gmail_default"> And yet despite the many things that we don't understand science nevertheless manages to exist and we are able to make some very good predictions. </span></font></div><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><i><span style="color:rgb(64,64,64);font-family:Spectral,serif,-apple-system,"system-ui","Segoe UI",Roboto,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif,"Apple Color Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji","Segoe UI Symbol""><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>(which is different, I guess, from Palmer’s own interpretation) </span><b style="color:rgb(64,64,64);font-family:Spectral,serif,-apple-system,"system-ui","Segoe UI",Roboto,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif,"Apple Color Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji","Segoe UI Symbol"">seems to imply that Palmer’s theory is nonlocal and retrocausal.</b></i></blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4">I agree, based on that quote I don't see how anybody could reach a different conclusion. And that is a blatant<span class="gmail_default"> </span>contradiction to what Palmer<span class="gmail_default"> said previously. </span></font><div class="gmail_default"><span style="color:rgb(64,64,64);font-family:Spectral,serif,-apple-system,"system-ui","Segoe UI",Roboto,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif,"Apple Color Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji","Segoe UI Symbol";font-size:19px"><b><br></b></span></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><span style="color:rgb(64,64,64);font-family:Spectral,serif,-apple-system,"system-ui","Segoe UI",Roboto,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif,"Apple Color Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji","Segoe UI Symbol""><i><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>To me, determinism means that the future is determined by the present, and local causality means that causal influences are limited by the speed of light and therefore take time to propagate in space.</i></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4">That's what those words mean to me as well.<span class="gmail_default"> </span> </font></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><i><span class="gmail_default">> </span>According to Palmer, we have some sort of free will because we are part of the IS.</i></blockquote><div><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><font size="4">If <span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">Palmer could explain what "free will" is supposed to mean then I'd be able to say if I agree with him or not. </span></font></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> <span class="gmail_default">><i></i></span><i>This opens the door to a concept of afterlife: we and our loved ones “will be coming back in future epochs of the universe” along new paths close to this one.<span class="gmail_default"></span></i></blockquote><div><i> </i></div><font size="4">Poincaré<span class="gmail_default">'s</span> <span class="gmail_default"></span>Recurrence <span class="gmail_default"></span>Theorem<span class="gmail_default"> says any dynamical system composed of a finite number of particles (as the human brain is) will, given sufficient time, return to its original state, however </span>I wouldn't consider<span class="gmail_default"> j</span>ust repeating the same<span class="gmail_default"> identical </span>thing<span class="gmail_default"> over and over again to be an afterlife because repeating an event an infinite number of times and doing it just once would be </span>subjectively<span class="gmail_default"> </span><span class="gmail_default">identical. And subjectivity is the most important thing in the universe, or at least it is in my subjective opinion. </span>But if you could keep on increasing the number of particles, that is to say if your brain kept getting bigger, then you could keep on having novel experiences until you ran out of particles to add.<span class="gmail_default"> </span></font></div><div dir="ltr"><span class="gmail_default"><font size="4"><br></font></span></div><div dir="ltr"><span class="gmail_default"><font size="4">John K Clark</font></span></div></div></div></div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default"></div></div></div></div></div>
<p></p>
-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to <a href="mailto:extropolis+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">extropolis+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv1%2BjiANpcTxrqEqW9hvtTu2imyZS3ELTKggDLx5iqPoGw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv1%2BjiANpcTxrqEqW9hvtTu2imyZS3ELTKggDLx5iqPoGw%40mail.gmail.com</a>.<br>
</blockquote></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>