Seasons

I also have to wonder... Supposing we could replicate an object down to the quantum state. Do we really know we have EVERYthing about it? We have the physical characteristics, yes, but that involves the assumption that the physical plane is the only one of relevance. This could be the case, or it could be the case that there is something outside the physical (call it a soul) that would be missed.

For something completely different, I just ran across a god-bot:

http://www.titane.ca/concordia/dfar251/igod/main.html

Not sure what it's based on.

A more interesting question would be, if they ARE a single entity at that moment in time, would consciousness necessarily diverge? Or would both be aware of everything the other does from that moment on? It could be as simple as a collapsed wave function (on, then off), or maybe it's a state that gradually fades away instead.

I don't believe there would be a consciously perceived shared consciousness, since this would be an abrupt alteration in Irina's subjective experience between t=-1 and t=0, which I can't see any justification for. There is no time across 2 adjacent time quanta for any merely synaptic-speed reorganization to implant the subjective appreciation of a shared consciousness. Unless the setting up of the extra entangled matter prior to unfolding Irina initiated this consciousness. That could be possible I guess.

But it's an interesting notion, and there is certainly a shared consciousness in the sense that it's pattern identical and perfectly correlated at t=0 - it's just that the correlation is not consciously perceived, any more than another emulation of you, elsewhere in space and time, in some Eternal Return or emulation scenario, or in a parallel universe, would share an explicit perception your consciousness. But what happens to this correlation?

Well, the wave function collapse would have to be a sudden transition, probably between t=0 and t=1 I think. Zeh suggests (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9908/9908084.pdf)that branching is primarily between consciousnesses rather than between physical realities by means of a psycho-physical parallelism, and this would suggest some continuance of a unitary consciousness. I find this appealing, since it also serves as a possible model for this macroscopic spatial translocation of Irina.
But how robust, I wonder. Would the correlation disappear at the first whiff of decoherence? Or would it scale linearly? or is there a robustness threshold that bounds the degree to which the minds constitute the "same" person?

Since consciousness is poorly understood, the idea that after that instant they would be separate entities seems like an awfully large assumption.

The idea that 3 separate brains informed by 3 separate sets of sensory organs from 3 separate spatial loci, and (quite possibly) all initiated at t=0 with a complete absence of any existing appreciation of shared consciousness, should not only remain in 1:1 relation indefinitely, but consciously share one supermind seems a much larger assumption to me. As soon as those brains continue working, there is a divergence between the Irinas. They all share the same past - they are all the "original" Irina, but they take 3 future paths.

The wave function must be collapsed at some point (and only at a point - a dynamical collapse would seriously upset Schroedinger's equation, and it's the exact maintenance of this equation that seems to me to be the greatest asset of the many worlds interpretation.) And yet a dynamical process of decoherence seems necessary, mostly because exact quantum coherence seems to me unlikely to be required for perfect emulation, and so some measure of degradation can be accommodated before the consciousnesses effectively diverge. Perhaps I now put a little more store in the notion of wave function collapse as merely an epiphenomenon of quantum decoherence. For a cycle (or several cycles?) of synaptic firing (many x-illions of time quanta), the 3 Irinas will still be in effective 1:1 relation to each other.

3 Irinas are all in the same universe and this branching has occurred, whether or not there would have been cause for branching to occur into parallel realms at that point had we not (by unspecified means) forced this curiosity on the universe. That's all we know for sure.


Do we really know we have EVERYthing about it? We have the physical characteristics, yes, but that involves the assumption that the physical plane is the only one of relevance.

Yes, it does involve that assumption. But I have to ask, what function would the introduction of another plane of reality serve? It's not a new idea, but it seems to me to be essentially "mysterifying" for its own sake - in response to a human vanity that claims some ineffably "special" nature we possess, and not in response to a need to explain any observed phenomena. Even if we have, strictly speaking, multiplied Irina beyond necessity, I think it is wise to bear Ockham's razor in mind.

Hmm. The more I consider it, the more the notion of a consciously shared mind formed during the entanglement process before t=0 actually appeals to me. But I wonder what would happen if, having set it all up, we allowed the whole mass to decohere without unfolding Irina? Would the mind just collapse back into one subjective focus?
Or if we set it all up when Irina was deeply asleep, and thus unconscious. If we woke the 3 Irinas up after their unfolding, would they then consciously perceive a shared mind?

What a can of worms!

For something completely different, I just ran across a god-bot:

haha! That's great!

I consider it just as vain to presume that the physical world is the only reality as to presume that it is not. And note that I only advocate considering the possibility. If your exact duplicate could, in fact, be made based solely on physical principles and be indistinguishable from the original, it would be a strong argument in favor of the solely physical interpretation. *shrugs*

Psimagus:

I still don't understand how there can be three of them, if they are identical. If x is identical to y, and y is identical to z, then the set {x,y,z} has only one member, not three. It seems to me that you are trying to have it both ways.
In addition to "instantiation", you now introduce "entanglement". I don't think it matters how many esoteric concepts you introduce, you aren't going to be able to have it both ways.

When you say that the set {x,x,x} contains three elements, I can only throw up my hands in despair. We think so differently, that I think that real dialogue between us is impossible.

My attempt to describe the set as {x,x,x} is merely a (perhaps clumsy) attempt to demonstrate the shared identity of what it contains. This is an exceptionally counterintuitive case, and human thought and symbolic representation seems ill-suited to describe it. I take exception to {x,y,z} merely because I think you are still trying to claim that there are 3 separate objects in the set.

All I am arguing for is an extrapolation of the perfectly well-accepted (albeit "spooky", in Einstein's opinion,) concept of particle bilocation from a single particle to a larger mass composed of such particles (ie: you, Irina, and trilocated, as per your original spec, just to further complexify the problem.) Do you disbelieve in the concept of particle bilocation?

See http://www.physorg.com/news7144.html for a description of the double-slit experiment, that demonstrates the bilocation of a single electron (since if you fire a single electron at a diffraction grating, it evidently passes through both the slits simultaneously. Uncommon-sensical as it seems, this interpretation is generally accepted to be unavoidable. Because what other interpretation can possibly explain the observed result? There's a nobel prize (at least!) for anyone who can resolve "common sense" and the observed result with a better explanation.

Or is it that we propose trilocation, not bilocation that you take issue with? It is certainly scientific orthodoxy that there is no problem multi-locating beyond 2 positions, and if you type "triple slit experiment" into google, you'll see this has been experimentally verified. It might be harder to make 3 (or any number) of Irinas than 2 (though it should be no harder to trilocate an electron,) but it involves no fundamental difference of principle.

Or do you believe that the effect cannot be scaled up beyond a single particle? Well, it already has been experimentally applied to macro-scale objects. See http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225764.400-the-quantum-world-is-about-to-get-bigger.html
(looks like we'd have to chill you to a few millionths of a degree above absolute zero if we followed their methodology, but the principle is clearly sound.)

I know that common sense revolts at such notions (Einstein never managed to resolve the issue to his own satisfaction,) but it is nonetheless what we observe happening. And working on the basis of what is experimentally observed seems to be a sensible way to proceed (more sensible, at least, than invoking some deus ex machina or "common sense".) Of course, in this case we have the extra factor of the trilocated object being a conscious human being, and how that would affect the experiment is a whole heap of extra head-scratching!

I consider it just as vain to presume that the physical world is the only reality as to presume that it is not. And note that I only advocate considering the possibility.

I'm happy to entertain the possibility if there's any cause to - I only invoke Ockham's razor because I haven't yet seen any indication that there is, or need, be a further conflation of reality as it relates to us.
You can describe the qualities of material objects, or the material objects manifesting the qualities, but the model remains the same - two poles, rather than parallel (or intertwined) strands. Adding strands just seems to miss that point somehow. Or do you reject the dualist model, and go for the in-between?

Now, I enjoy metaphysics and mysticism as much as the next person (probably more! ) and I certainly agree there's more to reality than we perceive or understand (though I tend to express that in terms of extra properties of the physical universe, rather than invoking extra non-physical strands - but I'm perfectly happy to reverse the model if that's the way you'd rather examine it.) But there's an awful lot of New Age quackery out there (all present company excepted of course,) that relies on such psychical notions (usually presented in the form of unassailable Revelation that may not be questioned,) - everything from crystal healing to orgone radionics.
And the problem is that all Revelation, divine or otherwise, is not questionable - you have to accept it or refuse it (I don't object to revelation per se - I just find it experimentally intractable.)

Do you believe that there *is* a distinct psychical strand (for want of a better term,) within reality, one that is necessarily more than merely the sum of all qualities of the material universe and its parts, or are you just keeping all options open?
If you do believe there is, can you give me any indication that there need (or merely might) be such? Is there any experimental or observational evidence that you find compelling (I don't expect irrefutable analysis - anything: experimental anomalies, parapsychology, NDE, whatever.) Or is it simply a matter of faith/personal revelation?

My own opinion (FWIW) is that the material universe is primarily the way we interact with reality, not reality itself or even a part of it. The dualist (matter/quality, stuff/form, body/mind) model is an illusion, but it's all we've got, and what reality actually is is unknowable. But that's an intractable matter of faith/revelation that I can't reason out analytically, so I merely state it for anyone who's curious.

Dear Psimagus:

My view of the double-slit experiment is very straightforward. A wave goes through two slits and is diffracted. It interacts with the detector screen in a punctiliar, probabilistic fashion. There is no particle that travels in a continuous trajectory (or several) from the source to the screen. It is true that, once you assume that there is such a particle, you are led to bizarre conclusions; I conclude by reductio ad absurdum that the assumption is false. Other evidence that it is false comes from quantum tunneling, wherein a 'particle' goes from A to B even though there is a region between the two in which the 'particle' cannot exist.
There is currently a whole industry consisting of finding the most bizarre possible interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. There must be twenty or thirty such interpretations by now. If profundity varies directly with distance from common sense, conceptual clarity, and logical consistency, many of these interpretations are extremely profound.
You write, "this interpretation is generally accepted to be unavoidable." I do not think this is so - there are many interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, and debate on these issues continues - but in any event, I am not deeply concerned with what is "generally accepted." I make my own decisions, based on formulations of Quantum Mechanics such as that found on pp. 214-225 of Cohen-Tannoudji, Diu, and Laloe, Quantum Mechanics. If you can derive your views rigorously from such postulates, I will be very impressed, revise my opinions, and apologize for giving you a hard time.

Walk in Beauty, Irina

Dear Psimagus:

I am not opposed to multi-location in principle. I believe that it is possible to give a consistent account of time-travel (though there is no evidence I know of that time-travel actually happens), according to which I could go back in time and shake hands with my earlier self. In such a case, I would be in two places at once. There would not be two of me, however.

IMCO (In My Curmudgeonly Opinion), there is such a thing as identity. It is the relation that each thing bears to itself, and to nothing else. The set {x,y} has one element if and only if x exists and is identical to y. If x exists and y exists but x is not identical to y, then {x, y} has two elements. Is there anything in this paragraph that you disagree with?

Dear Psimagus:

I do not think that quantum entanglement is the same as identity. On the contrary, if 'particle' X has spin up, and 'particle' Y simultaneously has spin down, as often happens in EPR cases, they cannot be the same particle (unless Quantum Mechanics is false). I conclude that even if Irina-1 and Irina-2 are 'entangled' (Ooh, sounds like fun!), they need not be the same person.