Bravo, George. This is a derivation of Liebnitz's point.
How many more ingenious 'solutions' will there be to the paradoxes that
belief in a 'first person' leads to? Quite a few I imagine, as nobody can
countenance for a split-second that they don't exist as a 'person'. They
absolutely insist
point of view
I am much more like a cloud of numbers spreading in
a cloud of real/complex numbers. From a first person
point of you I am, obviously, a person, your servitor :-)
* * *
James Higgo wrote:
Wat am I? Obviously, 'I' am an Observer-Moment
]
To: James Higgo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: (Quantum) suicide not necessary?
There is no 'you'. 'You' don't 'travel'. There
are just different observer moments, some including
'I am Micky and I'm, sick
That's what happens when you can't let go of the idea of self.
- Original Message -
From: Michael Rosefield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: James Higgo [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: on formally indescribable merde
, March 09, 2001 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: on formally indescribable merde
James Higgo wrote:
So what is it, this mystical soul, that 'transits' OMs?
This mystical soul that transits is the person.
The person, with its first, second and third person aspects.
We have had a discussion
So what is it, this mystical soul, that 'transits' OMs?
- Original Message -
From: George Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 5:34 AM
Subject: Re: on formally indescribable merde
James Higgo wrote:
Another point: come on guys, explain how
Bruno, I'm of the Liebnitz school: each OM is independent and unrelated to
another except in that it will, of course, share certain characteristics.
It's bound to, as all OMs exist. What is the relevance of 'entangled
histories'?
Another point: come on guys, explain how one OM 'becomes' another.
Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: James Higgo [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Michael Rosefield
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: (Quantum) suicide not necessary?
On 03-Mar-01, James Higgo wrote:
Your comment, 'an explanation
of many
first
person perspectives.
James Higgo wrote:
I agree, except that there is no 'transition' from one OM to the next.
What
is it that 'transits' ?
Nothing transits in time. Its' just that each OM is connected to other
OMs
by unidirectional logical arrows formulated according
I agree, except that there is no 'transition' from one OM to the next. What
is it that 'transits' ?
- Original Message -
From: George Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: on formally describable universes and measures
Brent
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: James Higgo [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Michael Rosefield
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: (Quantum) suicide not necessary?
I checked out your website, but it still seems to me there is a big gap
-
From:
Saibal Mitra
To: James Higgo ; Michael Rosefield ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 4:34
PM
Subject: QTI
I also don't think that 'Quantum Theory of
Immortality' is correct in its conventional form. I do believe, however, that
a different versionis
Guys, this is really good stuff. This is answering my question of a couple
of weeks ago. I will quote it in a paper with your permission.
James
- Original Message -
From: Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: on formally
Oh, as to 'this is trivial - we still perceive
ourselves as continuous beings' - I guess as far as you're concerned,the
Earth does not move.
- Original Message -
From:
Michael Rosefield
To: James Higgo ; Saibal Mitra ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 3
-
From:
Michael Rosefield
To: James Higgo ; Saibal Mitra ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 3:34
PM
Subject: Re: (Quantum) suicide not
necessary?
From: James Higgo
Before I was blind
but now I see.
I was the one who
came up
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.
There is no 'you'. 'You'
Jesse, nobody on this list is unaware of Carter's paper, to which I and
others have referred in several of our papers. The point is, life is a
high-level concept, not relevant to the more fundamental debate I thought we
were having. What was the point of Anthropic Reasoning 101?
So my question
Oh, I forgot to mention Julian Barbour's 'the end
of time' - see
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195117298/qid=981890976/sr=1-1/ref=sc_b_1/103-1683623-4661404
Vic Stenger's book is called, 'Timeless
Reality : Symmetry, Simplicity, and Multiple Universes
'
Now, George, you can't
Oh, I forgot to mention Julian Barbour's 'the end
of time' - seehttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195117298/qid=3D981890976/sr=3D1-=1/ref=3Dsc_b_1/103-1683623-4661404Vic
Stenger's book is called, 'Timeless Reality : Symmetry, Simplicity, =and
Multiple Universes 'Now, George, you can't
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: Consciousness schmonscioisness
James Higgo (co.uk) wrote:
It's been almost two years you guys have been hung up on this 'I'
nonsense
-
can't you conceive, for one moment, that there is no 'I'? Can you grasp
It's been almost two years you guys have been hung up on this 'I' nonsense -
can't you conceive, for one moment, that there is no 'I'? Can you grasp the
indisputable fact that this debate is meaningless if there is no 'I', just
observer-moments without an 'observer'? Has anybody out there
petered out - how is it getting on?
James
- Original Message -
From: Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]; James Higgo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 3:52 PM
Subject: Out of line ?
Hi Brent, Hi James,
Thank you both for your commentaries
Gilles, I have just read and enjoyed your post of 1st August.
The problem we face, defining when a device is conscious, puts me in
mind of Bunge's comments on the problems we have understanding the
universe as a whole: we have troubnle because we are trying to see from
the outside something
23 matches
Mail list logo
