Re: doomsday argument

Saibal wrote: >An interesting article by Ken Olum can be obtained from: > >http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0009081 > >In short you don't get any information by observing your age, because you >made two observations: > >1) I exist > >2) I am one year old > >When you compute your updated probability

Re: Logically possible universes and Occam's razor

Russell Standish wrote >Marchal wrote: >> >> Russell Standish wrote: >> >> >I raised this very issue in "Why Occams Razor", and came to the >> >conclusion that the only satisfactory "interpreter" is the observer >> >itself. >> >> And so the question resumes into 'what is the observer itself'.

Re: doomsday argument

Bruno wrote: > Charles wrote: > > >(BTW, would I be right in thinking that, applying the SSA to a person who > >"finds himself" to be 1 year old, the chances that he'll > >live to be 80 is 1/80?) > > This argument (against Leslie Bayesian Doomsday argument) has been > developped by Jean Paul Dela

Re: FW: Conditional probability & continuity of consciousness

Charles Goodwin wrote: >> From: Marchal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> >> I mean the feeling of being spotted could perhaps be explained, and >> certainly is in need for an explanation. > >You lost me with that last sentence, and just when I thought I was doing >so well. (I assume it has nothing

RE: Conventional QTI = False

Charles wrote: >(BTW, would I be right in thinking that, applying the SSA to a person who >"finds himself" to be 1 year old, the chances that he'll >live to be 80 is 1/80?) This argument (against Leslie Bayesian Doomsday argument) has been developped by Jean Paul Delahaye in the journal "Pour l

RE: Conventional QTI = False

Charles Goodwin wrote: >I think the only constraint is that the extensions should be physically >possible, i.e. possible outcomes of the schrodinger wave >equation. If those are also logical outcomes then fine, but the SWE is the >constraining factor. Why? You postulate physicalism. Show me y

RE: Immortality

Charles Goodwin wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Marchal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> >> Perhaps. But if you do that move, everyone is resurrected in >> everyone, and >> there is only one person in the multiverse. I don't know. James Higgo >> was more radical on this, he defended t

RE: Narrow escapes

Charles Goodwin wrote: >If you drive carefully are you merely ensuring that >elsewhere in the multiverse you aren't??? If you drive carefully, you are ensuring that you drive carefully in the "normal" worlds. The majority of worlds/computations are normal. The measure on computational continuati

immortality

--- Charles Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > -Original Message-> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of rwas> > > > Eh? If I understood this statement then I must object. I have quite> clear> > memories of before-death, during-death, and after-death. I