[ExI] Problems with Platonia again

[Mike Dougherty]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/9/25 Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com>:
>
>> In particular, how does a physical law obtain from a Platonia
>> viewpoint? Suppose snapshots are all that exists. Let a sequence
>> of them be f1, f2, f3, f4, ... that amount to a photon in motion
>> which is following a Maxwell equation, conserving momentum
>> and so on. But somewhere in the pile of all possible configurations
>> of the universe is an f3', which has the photon in some very weird
>> place and an f4' so that between them f3' and f4' correspond to
>> a photon going the other direction far, far away. Why is f2 somehow
>> more tightly coupled to f3 than to f3'?
>>
>> I.e., how does physical law emerge?

> Extending this idea, suppose there is a third version of you, L3, and
> a successor L3', both of which are distinct in subjective content from
> L1, L2, L1' and L2', but such that the subjective content of L3'
> *could* have followed from L1 or L2. Then if you are currently
> experiencing L1, your next experience might be drawn not only from L1'
> or L2', but also from L3'. There is no basis for saying that L1' is
> "more tightly coupled" to L1 than L2' or L3' are, provided that L3'
> has the right sort of subjective content. But we might be able to say
> that you are twice as likely to experience L1'/L2' (which we said have
> identical subjective content) rather than L3' as successor to L1/2,
> since there are twice as many versions of L1'/L2' as of L3'.

This sounds very similar to what I wrote on Sept 16 in QT & SR thread:
[...] is there any difference in
Platonia from our observation of moment t1 to moment t2?  is there a
way to distinguish the moment t'2 ?  How do we know at t3 that some of
our peers didn't actually experience t'2?  If that's a perfectly valid
transition of states, why not observer t1, t'1, t3, t'3 ?  Maybe
people who observe life this way (upconverted from a lower definition)
have a difficult time understanding those who perceive t1, t2, t3, t4
(non-interlaced)  Likewise there may be observers capable of
comfortable perceiving t1, t2+t'2, t3 (even numbered moments
simultaneously "in stereo" from two universes)  [...]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Stathis Papaioannou
<stathisp at gmail.com> continued:
> The upshot of all this is that in a multiverse, your consciousness can
> flit about passing through all physical copies with the right sort of
> subjective content. The only thing that stops you experiencing
> extremely weird shifts from moment to moment must be that such shifts
> are of very low measure: there just aren't that many versions of you
> in the multiverse where you observe a fire-breathing dragon where
> previously your memory tells you there was a keyboard. If this
> explanation fails, then I would take that as evidence in favour of a
> single, finite universe.

I ask why there need need be any detection of shifts at all.  If the
state of your memory is included in these discrete moments, then you
can't rely on your belief in a memory for continuity.  Suppose each
frame of your favorite movie were scattered before you as an
unsequenced collection.  You may be able to recognize a scene
'belonging' near the beginning or end of the movie.  There is no
reason that collection had to be ordered the way you remember it.  I
may have watched the whole thing in reverse order.  Perhaps it made
very little sense to me, or perhaps that's how I always watch movies
and the relationships between characters was refolding rather than
unfolding.  Perhaps my attention is split with another project 50% of
the time and that I only care about 15 of 30 frames per second such
that I don't even notice their reorganization (or complete
disappearance) within statistically insignificant series.  How much is
significant?  If exactly every even frame is perfectly ordered, but
every odd frame has a possibility of being either missing or swapped
with it's nearest odd neighbor - do I notice?  Maybe not if the shift
is equally proportioned throughout the film.  Is it the uniquely
ordered disturbance that catches our attention, or the uniquely
disordered disturbance that catches our attention?