On 6/10/2012 6:12 PM, Pierz wrote:
I'm starting this as a new thread rather than continuing under 'QTI and eternal
torment', where this idea came up, because it's really a new topic.
It seems to me an obvious corollary of comp that there is in reality (3p) only
one observer, a single subject th
I'm starting this as a new thread rather than continuing under 'QTI and eternal
torment', where this idea came up, because it's really a new topic.
It seems to me an obvious corollary of comp that there is in reality (3p) only
one observer, a single subject that undergoes all possible experience
On 10 June 2012 17:49, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Yes it is possible. And "worth", it is necessary the case.
worse?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsub
On 10 June 2012 17:26, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> I am not sure I understand your problem with that simultaneity. The
> arithmetical relations are out of time. It would not make sense to say that
> they are simultaneously true, because this refer to some "time", and can
> only be used as a metaphor.
On 09 Jun 2012, at 23:59, Nick Prince wrote:
On Jun 9, 11:17 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2012, at 20:52, Nick Prince wrote:
On Jun 8, 8:45 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Nick,
This is a bit unclear. How is U and D distinguished from the
(absence
of) first person view?
On 09 Jun 2012, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/9/2012 3:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Imagine that you decide to kill yourself with an atomic bomb, so as
to maximize your annihilation probability. Then it might be that
your probability of surviving in a world where you are just not
deciding
On 09 Jun 2012, at 21:53, Abram Demski wrote:
Bruno, Wei,
I've been reading the book "saving truth from paradox" on and off,
and it has convinced me of the importance of the "inside view" way
of doing foundations research as opposed to the "outside view".
At first, I simply understood Fi
On 09 Jun 2012, at 20:57, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 09.06.2012 20:27 Quentin Anciaux said the following:
Le 9 juin 2012 20:22, "Evgenii Rudnyi" a écrit :
...
No, I have meant
a) simulated computer
b) simulated myself (but not in a)
Now I consider a) and b). This is after all some in
On 09 Jun 2012, at 15:42, David Nyman wrote:
On 9 June 2012 11:17, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Such a backtracking (proposed once by Saibal Mitra on this list)
can also be
used to defend the idea that there is only one person, and that
personal
identity is a relative "illusory" notion. We might
9 matches
Mail list logo
