Mark Buda writes:
> Still busy, but things are looking up for finding the time. I'll have
> to revisit what I wrote before, though, because some of it was
> garbage. Nailed the red state blue state thing, though, even though I
> didn't explain adequately.
While I did nail it, I never actually sa
Still busy, but things are looking up for finding the time. I'll have to
revisit what I wrote before, though, because some of it was garbage. Nailed
the red state blue state thing, though, even though I didn't explain
adequately.
I always had a problem with showing my work.
On Monday, July 19,
On 11 Jan 2013, at 18:14, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Reminds me of an old short by Larry Niven, called All the Myriad
Ways, where a police detective tries to uncover why radom murder-
suicides are happening, (That world is where scientists discover how
to travel to different Earths) and had
Everett's daughter was right in the sense of a "lithothese"
(double negation = positive answer) translated into
* "I don't want to be WITHOUT my father" *
The rest is interpretation.
JM
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:14 PM, wrote:
> **
> Reminds me of an old short by Larry Niven, called All the M
On 10 Jan 2013, at 21:43, John Clark wrote:
Perhaps the Quantum Suicide experiment has already been performed
and on a global scale. After Hugh Everett developed the many Worlds
interpretation in his doctoral dissertation he was disappointed at
the poor reception it received and never
Reminds me of an old short by Larry Niven, called All the Myriad Ways,
where a police detective tries to uncover why radom murder-suicides are
happening, (That world is where scientists discover how to travel to different
Earths) and had discovered one, where the Cuban War was just a wet
fi
On 1/10/2013 12:43 PM, John Clark wrote:
Perhaps the Quantum Suicide experiment has already been performed and on a global scale.
After Hugh Everett developed the many Worlds interpretation in his doctoral dissertation
he was disappointed at the poor reception it received and never published
Perhaps we must worship Everett. Maybe he is with Einstein in a
superdimensional throne of quarks. Aleluya.
2013/1/10 John Clark
> Perhaps the Quantum Suicide experiment has already been performed and on a
> global scale. After Hugh Everett developed the many Worlds interpretation
&g
Perhaps the Quantum Suicide experiment has already been performed and on a
global scale. After Hugh Everett developed the many Worlds interpretation
in his doctoral dissertation he was disappointed at the poor reception it
received and never published anything on quantum mechanics again for the
I agree with pretty much everything you are saying, Jesse; unfortunately, I
don't have the time at the moment to respond adequately.
I think it would greatly improve the signal-to-noise ratio on this list if
everybody else kept quiet on this thread until you read my response to Jesse.
Please be
> > Please, seek medical help. If you're right, you lose nothing and might
> > convince at least the psychiatrist you talk to. If I'm right, you get
> > cured. It can't do you any harm, but leaving what looks to me like a
> > serious illness untreated may well do you some serious harm.
>
> Look,
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Mark Buda wrote:
>
>> You worked on a psychiatric ward but you never understood them. If
>> you had taken the time to interact with them, one on one, and share
>> their lives and hopes and dreams, you would have been able to help
>> them figure it out.
>
> That
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Mark Buda wrote:
> You worked on a psychiatric ward but you never understood them. If you had
> taken the time to interact with them, one on one, and share their lives
> and hopes and dreams, you would have been able to help them figure it out.
That is precisely
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Mark Buda wrote:
>> Get it? Good grief, even if the
>> stuff I'm saying taken as a whole doesn't make sense, at least focus on
>> one piece at a time and you will agree that I'm making perfect sense.
>
> Mark, seriously, you're not. I worked on a psychiatric war
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Mark Buda wrote:
> Get it? Good grief, even if the
> stuff I'm saying taken as a whole doesn't make sense, at least focus on
> one piece at a time and you will agree that I'm making perfect sense.
Mark, seriously, you're not. I worked on a psychiatric ward for
se
> Mark, we may be wrong, but none of what you said makes very much sense
> for us. Some things you said may make sense, but seems to me humanly
> communicable only through math, fiction, art, poetry, ... and stands
> always very far away from any literal certainty.
I know it doesn't make sense. I
Jesse, Mark,
On 18 Jul 2010, at 17:20, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Well, it's impossible to know what's going on with you based on a
few email messages but it definitely sounds like it could be a manic
state to me--this sort of grandiosity and boundless confidence in
one's own abilities and powe
> Did Gene Ray died the other night as you predicted ?
>
> No, then go consult.
>
> Simple as that.
I don't know whether he died or not. Google doesn't seem to know either.
Since none of you seem interested in helping me (and I don't blame you,
but it was worth a shot) I'm going to send him an ema
Well...
Did Gene Ray died the other night as you predicted ?
No, then go consult.
Simple as that.
Regards,
Quentin
2010/7/18 Mark Buda
> > Well, it's impossible to know what's going on with you based on a few
> > email messages but it definitely sounds like it could be a manic state to
> > m
> Well, it's impossible to know what's going on with you based on a few
> email messages but it definitely sounds like it could be a manic state to
> me--this sort of grandiosity and boundless confidence in one's own
> abilities and powers is common in mania.
Of course it is. But note that I'm not
> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 16:10:23 -0700
> Subject: RE: Civilization-level quantum suicide
> From: her...@acm.org
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>
> > Mark, if you're not kidding here I honestly think you may be experiencing
> > some kind of mental disor
>>I'm not kidding. I understand your concern
>
> It's also statistically more likely if you're a male between 18-25...
Statistics govern groups. I am an individual. I am 42. As was my father
when I was born. What an interesting coincidence. Not.
> You did post a testable prediction though -- that
>I'm not kidding. I understand your concern
It's also statistically more likely if you're a male between 18-25... that's
when these sorts of brain farts are most common. It doesn't mean you're
crazy, but the most important step to understanding what you're thinking is
to understand that you're stu
> Mark, if you're not kidding here I honestly think you may be experiencing
> some kind of mental disorder, perhaps a manic state (good description of
> these kinds of states by Oliver Sacks at
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/sep/25/a-summer-of-madness/?pagination=false
> ) or even
> > Why do you want to convince Richard Dawkins? You give him credit.
>
> Because I know that I know how to persuade him of the truth based on
> evidence *and* emotion. I can prove to him, personally, that I am God, and
> that I created the universe. And he will believe it. Because I can show
>
> On 16 Jul 2010, at 14:13, Mark Buda wrote:
>
>> But the upshot of it is this: I have found out what happens when you
>> commit quantum suicide. You discover that you believe a contradiction,
>> and that even though nothing about the world has changed, you
>> und
e any of them could be and I'm just one guy. I have all the
answers and none of the questions, because I no longer have free will. Or
I'm the only one left with free will, take your pick. Or ignore me. But
the problem is not going away. Something odd is going on.
Would you like to know
: Re: Civilization-level quantum suicide
On 16 Jul 2010, at 14:13, Mark Buda wrote:
> I came across this link some time ago and found it interesting:
>
> http://www.paul-almond.com/CivilizationLevelQuantumSuicide.htm
>
> In fact, I believe it is what introduced me to the term "q
On 16 Jul 2010, at 14:13, Mark Buda wrote:
I came across this link some time ago and found it interesting:
http://www.paul-almond.com/CivilizationLevelQuantumSuicide.htm
In fact, I believe it is what introduced me to the term "quantum
suicide". I had been googling something
introduced me to the term "quantum
> suicide". I had been googling something I had been thinking about in
> the shower one day and to my surprise this guy had written a paper
> about it. What an amazing coincidence. My life since then has been an
> increasingly bizarre series
I came across this link some time ago and found it interesting:
http://www.paul-almond.com/CivilizationLevelQuantumSuicide.htm
In fact, I believe it is what introduced me to the term "quantum
suicide". I had been googling something I had been thinking about in
the shower one day
ZeroSum wrote:
> The Wiki article "Quantum suicide and immortality" (http://
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality) states:
>
> "Also, the philosopher David Lewis, in "How Many Lives Has
> Schrödinger's Cat?", remarked that in
2009/5/10 ZeroSum :
> David Lewis' statement cuts to the core of the nature of
> consciousness. If each conscious observer on planet Earth (and let's
> assume the laws of physics don't limit consciousness to humans but
> includes any sentient animal life form) exists in "Many Worlds" (see
> Wiki
The Wiki article "Quantum suicide and immortality" (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality) states:
"Also, the philosopher David Lewis, in "How Many Lives Has
Schrödinger's Cat?", remarked that in the vast majority of the worlds
in which a
This is extremely gratifying. Readers of Greg Egan's novel Quarantine
would also like this.
http://msm.grumpybumpers.com/?p=20
--
Ron Hale-Evans ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... http://ron.ludism.org/ ... (206)
201-1768
Mind Performance Hacks book: http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/mindperfhks/
On 27 Jun 2008, at 20:52, Tom Caylor wrote:
>
> On Jun 8, 2:43 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 06 Jun 2008, at 23:35, Tom Caylor wrote:
>> ...
>>> One consistent configuration is that we are all immortal and that
>>> part
>>> of this immortal being is something that is outs
Tom,
> which requires repeatability. Love (the mysterious force of good
> relationship between persons) does not "work" within a scientific
you should have a look at the rich literature on love, which is the
subject of (ever growing) scientific study.
Here a small beginning:
http://en.wikiped
Welcome.
I see that you use the word "intention" several times. It seems that
this is the word/notion on which your tries pivot, and I think this is
also the downfall. I think that intention is a very good part of
reality, but it can find its meaning only when coupled with the
humility that we
On Jun 8, 2:43 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06 Jun 2008, at 23:35, Tom Caylor wrote:
> ...
> > One consistent configuration is that we are all immortal and that part
> > of this immortal being is something that is outside of what we can
> > observe scientifically, including ot
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Hi jal278,
...
> Similarly, assuming that QI is true, the survival probabilities at the
> end cases (where you
> are >150 yrs old) would get to be incredibly small, such that perhaps
> healthy decisions
> made when you are younger (i.e. never smoke, keep
Hi jal278,
Le 23-juin-08, à 19:08, jal278 a écrit :
>
> First time post.
You are welcome.
> Would it be possible to use the principles of QS as
> an oracle? E.g. buy a lotto ticket before taking a flight, with the
> intention
> that if you win some improbable amount in the lotto you do not t
First time post. Would it be possible to use the principles of QS as
an oracle? E.g. buy a lotto ticket before taking a flight, with the
intention
that if you win some improbable amount in the lotto you do not take
the flight.
Perhaps this flight was extremely likely to crash and your odds of
surv
On 06 Jun 2008, at 23:35, Tom Caylor wrote:
> I guess I could see that it could be consistent that from each of our
> perspectives eventually we are the only one left in the mulitverse, if
> we were all cut-off from each other, essentially in separate universes
> or histories. But with all of
2008/6/7 Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You don't. You just outlive everyone else in the (very, very tiny, and
> shrinking) hyperplane of Hilbert space where quantum randomness has
> contrived to save you from death (but not from disability :-( ). On
> other very tiny, shrinking hyperpl
tive and can be lived from a 1-person perspective.
>>> Now, what is 1-person immortality? Very difficult question. The
>>> (lobian) machine can make sense, apparently, of a sentence like that:
>>> yesterday I have been immortal, but today I am mortal. The difficulty
sia than in the fission ...
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>> PS Brent is right. Some annuity contract can be used for making money
>> via comp or quantum suicide, as far as the company handling that
>> annuity is robust enough. (Always making all the default assumptions:
>
n make sense, apparently, of a sentence like that:
> > yesterday I have been immortal, but today I am mortal. The difficulty
> > is more in the fusion/amnesia than in the fission ...
>
> > Bruno
>
> > PS Brent is right. Some annuity contract can be used for m
ce like that:
> yesterday I have been immortal, but today I am mortal. The difficulty
> is more in the fusion/amnesia than in the fission ...
>
> Bruno
>
> PS Brent is right. Some annuity contract can be used for making money
> via comp or quantum suicide, as far as the
can be used for making money
via comp or quantum suicide, as far as the company handling that
annuity is robust enough. (Always making all the default assumptions:
obviously (?) science per se is totally agnostic about any first
person experience, knowledge ...)
On 06 Jun 2008, at 01:44
Why is it that from my first person perspective other people die?
Perhaps a different question:
Why is it that from your first person perspective other people die?
Tom
On Jun 5, 8:27 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Lawrence, welcome,
>
> You have to be more precise on the bett
Just buy an annuity that starts paying out when you're 80 (they're cheap).
The annuity sellers are essentially betting you wont' live to much beyond
that - and they're almost always right.
Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Hi Lawrence, welcome,
>
> You have to be more precise on the betti
Hi Lawrence, welcome,
You have to be more precise on the betting procedure. You will win the
bet against people who, from your personal point of view, will most
probably be dead at the time. How do you intent to recover the money?
Bruno
On 05 Jun 2008, at 15:28, Lawrence wrote:
>
> Forgiv
Forgive me if the following comment is ill-thought through as this is
my first post to the group.
It appears to me that, assuming QS is true, I should bet some
reasonably substantial amount of cash at the local bookies that I will
live to 110 or 120 years of age. Of course I will be around to col
Le 01-nov.-05, à 21:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Bruno,
So why is it that from the 3rd person point of view everyone dies?
Because incompleteness in its 3-person "probabilistic" meaning is that:
IF you are alive THEN there is a non negligible probability that you
will die.
This means
Bruno Marchal writes:
I believe that the quantum theory does not allow cul-de-sac branches.
I also believe that the Godel-Lob theory of self-reference not only allow
cul-de-sac branches, but it imposes them everywhere: from all alive states
you can reach a dead end.
The Universal Dovetailer Ar
I should have said "a countable set of countable histories".
Tom
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 15:05:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality (was Re: Quantum Suicide)
Bruno,
So why
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Everything-List List
Sent: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 13:27:27 +0100
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality (was Re: Quantum Suicide)
Le 28-oct.-05, à 17:54, GottferDamnt a écrit (for-list):
Hi,
I would like talk about this quote from an old topic:
This is a rather shocking conclu
Le 28-oct.-05, à 17:54, GottferDamnt a écrit (for-list):
Hi,
I would like talk about this quote from an old topic:
This is a rather shocking conclusion. We are conscious here and
now because our (computational state) belongs to aleph_1 (or
2^aleph_0 for those who doesn't want to rely on Ca
Le 13-juil.-05, à 01:01, Charles Goodwin a écrit :
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Fabric-of-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin
I don't know what you even *mean* by "QS does not reduce the number
of worlds you experience", unless you mean that nothing that I can
do affects the number
Le 09-juil.-05, à 16:09, David Deutsch a écrit :
On 8 Jul 2005, at 11:25am, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now - what should be done about the presentation of
this concep of "Quantum Suicide Bombing"?
By the way: The discussion is *not* about the v
Hi Brent.
Brent Meeker wrote:
I don't understand the point of this modification. The idea of QS was
to arrange that in all possible worlds in which I exist, I'm rich.
If it's just a matter of being rich in a few and not rich in the
rest, I don't need any QS.
Yes but you only want
This
is a reply to Eric Hawthorne and Tim May.
Eric Hawthorne wrote:
>George Levy wrote:
Conclusions:
All this involves really basic probability theory.
The first person perspective probability is identical to the probability
conditional to the person staying alive.
>But tha
ayouts, we
all take on similar sorts of jobs. For example, flying on business.)
It's a reason some people take on very risky jobs. They figure if they
succeed, they'll be rich. If they fail, they'll be dead and won't care.
(Certainly not many people think this way, but some do
George Levy wrote:
Conclusions:
All this involves really basic probability theory.
The first person perspective probability is identical to the
probability conditional to the person staying alive.
But that first-person probability is not objective, and not valid, and
not useful.
Consider thi
Tim May wrote:
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 1:22:32 PM US/Pacific
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Quantum suicide without suicide
On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 12:32 PM, George Levy wrote:
As you can see, suicide is not necessary. One could be on
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 1:22:32 PM US/Pacific
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Quantum suicide without suicide
On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 12:32 PM, George Levy wrote:
As you can see, suicide is not necessary. One could be on death row -
in other
g of
a clock in which the clock travels one mile per hour. To get significant
results you must travel a significant fraction of the speed of light.
QS decisions are significantly different from "classical" decisions when
the life of the experimenter is at stake, (or as I pointed out earlie
Tim May wrote
On Wednesday, January 8, 2003, at 10:58 AM, George Levy wrote:
In the original verision of Quantum Suicide (QS), as understood in
this list, the experimenter sets up a suicide machine that kills
him if the world does not conform to his wishes. Hence, in the
branching many
[Tim May]
All indications are that there are virtually no worlds in which random
guessers do well.
Lev Vaidman wrote that we must care about all our 'successive'
worlds in proportion to their measures of existence [Behavior
Principle]. He does not agree to play the 'quantum Russian
roulette'
On Wednesday, January 8, 2003, at 10:58 AM, George Levy wrote:
In the original verision of Quantum Suicide (QS), as understood in
this list, the experimenter sets up a suicide machine that kills him
if the world does not conform to his wishes. Hence, in the branching
many-worlds, his
In the original verision of Quantum Suicide (QS), as understood in this
list, the experimenter sets up a suicide machine that kills him if the
world does not conform to his wishes. Hence, in the branching
many-worlds, his consciousness is erased in those worlds, and remains
intact in the
Hall Finney: ''You might want to clarify what you mean by quantum suicide
> "working". What do you hope to accomplish via QS? What effect will it
> have on your subjective perceptions?''
By ''quantum suicide working'' I mean that you could
At 16:01 -0700 20/06/2002, Hal Finney wrote:
>It's not clear that it means anything to say that the person could have
>died. Here is why I say that.
>
>I think we agree that the person in the mechanical brain who leaves
>the operation will not be able to tell whether it was a success or not.
>He
Russell Standish writes:
> If someone offered you a replacement mechanical brain which the
> surgeons guarantees would emulate your current brain state perfectly,
> would you take up the offer?
> ...
> Of course, if you accept Bruno's COMP principle, then you may very
> well take up the offer, if
us transitions become more unlikely (ie escaping death becomes
extremely less likely), then forgetting style discontinuous
transitions might dominate.
I can believe that this argument will prevent us from entering "Harry
Potter" type universes through Quantum Suicide, but one will p
I am now completely convinced that attempts to
witness low probability events or to travel to low measure sectors of the
plenitude are doomed to failure.
The (hidden) assumption behind quantum suicide is
that of continuity of consciousness: If there is only one unlikely outcome that
will
Hal finney wrote:
>It makes more sense to think of mind as a relational phenomenon, like
>"greater than" or "next to", but enormously more complicated. In that
>sense, if there are two identical brains, then they both exhibit the
>same relational properties. That means that the mind is the same
Jacques Mallah writes:
> The problem comes when some people consider death in this context. I'll
> try to explain the insane view on this, but since I am not myself insane I
> will probably not do so to the satisfaction of those that are.
I have mixed feelings about this line of reasoning,
On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Michael Rosefield wrote:
> 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.
I am happy to say that I found what I was looking for, the rest is just
another
point.
- Original Message -
From: rwas rwas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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&#
I think I understand your concern. As to how to form a
complete theory, I find that kind of thinking outside
my form of expression. Finding an all encompassing
theory for consciousness I believe will be impossible.
I think all we can do is frame the understanding in
terms of what we are trying to
--- rwas rwas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > versions of many-worlds theories, one might
> > consider a different approach.
> >
> > By deleting certain sectors of one's memory
> one
> > should be able to travel
> > to different branches of the multiverse.
> Suppose
> > you are d
--- rwas rwas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > There is no 'you'. 'You' don't 'travel'. There
> > are just different observer moments, some
> including
> > 'I am Micky and > I'm, sick'.
> >
> >
>
--
> >
> > So? T
rom: Brent 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-0
On 03-Mar-01, James Higgo wrote:
> Your comment, 'an explanation that can explain anything explains
> nothing.' is very imporatnt, and many people have said it. It is true
> of any TOE, as you say, and implies that _you_ should stop looking for
> a TOE as you will always be dissatisfied.
I would
ent Meeker <[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
I checked out your website, but it still seems to me there is a big gap
between saying all universes with physics that are consistent with the
WAP are experienced and saying that all thoughts (observer moments)
exists. In the later case there is no explanation for the seeming
existence of coheren
arch 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 with the expression, 'Quantum Theory of Immortality', and I now see
that it'
al Message -
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
Bruno wrote:
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
>
> >Instead of the previously discussed suicide experiments to test various
> >versions of many-worlds theories, one might consider a different
approach.
> >
> >By deleting certain sectors of one's memory one should be able to travel
> >to different branches of
>
From: James Higgo
> 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
th
n which 'you do not have the disease', just because you don't know
it?
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.
- Original Message -
From:
Michael Rosefield
To: Saibal Mitra
*Phew!*; this afternoon I finally got round to
reading the 190-odd messages I have received from this
list
From: Saibal Mitra
Instead of the previously discussed suicide
experiments to test variousversions of many-worlds theories, one might
consider a different approach.
*Phew!*; this afternoon I finally got round to
reading the 190-odd messages I have received from this
list
From: Saibal Mitra
Instead of the previously discussed suicide
experiments to test variousversions of many-worlds theories, one might
consider a different approach.
*Phew!*; this afternoon I finally got round to
reading the 190-odd messages I have received from this
list
From: Saibal Mitra
Instead of the previously discussed suicide
experiments to test variousversions of many-worlds theories, one might
consider a different approach.
to 'erase' them or even to say what that would mean.
Saibal's proposal is without doubt both naïve and subtil, very
near inconsistency. For advanced dreamers only :-)
It is quite possible I don't get it at all, also.
Perhaps you should
Hello Marchal
On 21-Feb-01, Marchal wrote:
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
>
>> Instead of the previously discussed suicide experiments to test
>> various versions of many-worlds theories, one might consider a
>> different approach.
>>
>> By deleting certain sectors of one's memory one should be able to
Saibal Mitra wrote:
>Instead of the previously discussed suicide experiments to test various
>versions of many-worlds theories, one might consider a different approach.
>
>By deleting certain sectors of one's memory one should be able to travel
>to different branches of the multiverse. Suppose yo
Instead of the previously discussed suicide
experiments to test variousversions of many-worlds theories, one might
consider a different approach.
By deleting certain sectors of one's memory one
should be able to travelto different branches of the multiverse. Suppose you
are diagnosed with
f consciousness after quantum
suicide seems to be equivalent to accepting the continuation of life
after a
lethal disease or even simply old age. Tegmark opinion doesn't seem to
be
consistent. If anyone has access to this bright individual please ask
him to
explain his rational.
George
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
