----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 3:34
PM
Subject: Re: (Quantum) suicide not
necessary?
> Before I was blind
but now I see.
> I was the one who
came up with the expression, 'Quantum Theory of Immortality', and I now see
that it's false - > and all this stuff in this thread is based on the same
mistake. See www.higgo.com/qti , a site
dedicated to the > idea.
Hey, I'm still counting it as original!
I _did_ come up with it independently.... And I still can't see anything wrong
with it.
Thanks for the web-site, though.
> There is no 'you'. 'You' don't 'travel'.
There are just different observer moments, some including 'I am Micky and >
I'm, sick'.
So? This is trivial. We still percieve ourselves as
continuous beings, and the qualia is what I'm talking about here. The point is
that one will _always_ have observer moments to go to. The illusion of self is
maintained. I'm pretty sure at least one of us is misunderstanding the
other.
> Even thinking in your passe Newtonian
terms, how can a universe in which 'you have a disease' be the
same > as one in which 'you do not have the disease', just
because you don't know it?
Oh.... Please don't do that. You don't know how I think, and
I really don't see why you jumped to this conclusion.
The way I see it now, the observer moment is all we
have. I think I may have picked up the following metaphor here, but I'll
use it nonetheless: did Jack and Jill go up the hill in August? Does it
matter?
The rhyme leaves it undefined, so it's a meaningless
question; they did and they didn't. We belong to all universes that generate
this observer moment, and only a sort of statistical Ockham's Razor says which
ones we'll perceive ourselves to be in next. What's the problem
here?
> I see why Jacques
gets so irritated by this type of thinking, but it's nice to see him back on
the list now & then.
What type of thinking? Please, I don't want to get into a
catfight here. I'm on this list, presumably, for the same reason you are:
to try and see the whole picture.
