-Original Message-
From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
The problem is that the probability isn't 0% that you'd find yourself at
your current age (according to the QTI - assume I put that after every
sentence!). Because you HAVE to pass through your current age to reach
-Original Message-
From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
2) You would also be the same person if the surgeon made a new brain
identically to yours.
I'm not sure what you mean here. The new brain would be
the same as the
old you, the old one would remain the same,
-Original Message-
From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I've explained that in other posts, but as you see, the idea is indeed
mathematically incoherent - unless you just mean the conditional effective
probability which a measure distribution defines by definition.
-Original Message-
From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I've explained that in other posts, but as you see, the idea is indeed
mathematically incoherent - unless you just mean the conditional effective
probability which a measure distribution defines by
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
So, I would say that you will always find yourself alive
somewhere. But it
is interesting to consider only our universe and ignore
quantum effects.
Even then you will always find yourself alive somewhere, but
you
continuation of provably impossible, I'd be
most interested to hear about it.
Cheers
Fred Chen wrote:
Hal, Charles, I think this is an unavoidable part of the QTI or FIN debate.
It seems that with QTI, you could only be entering white rabbit
Charles Goodwin wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
As I have written before, a person is just a computation being
implemented
somewhere. Suppose that the person has discovered that he suffers from a
terminal ilness and he dies (the
Fred Chen wrote:
Hal, Charles, I think this is an unavoidable part of the QTI or FIN debate.
It seems that with QTI, you could only be entering white rabbit
(magical-type) universes, not continue in probable ones.
But in general I have a more fundamental objection (to quantum
immortality
Good grief - Jacques said it often enough (F)allacious (I)nsane (N)onsense!
Charles Goodwin wrote:
Thank you for the explanation. I think FIN stands for something derogatory -
possibly invented by Jaques Mallah (in much the way
that Fred Hoyle coined the term 'Big Bang' to make his
Thank you for the explanation. I think FIN stands for something derogatory - possibly
invented by Jaques Mallah (in much the way
that Fred Hoyle coined the term 'Big Bang' to make his opponents' views sound
ridiculous, or art critics coined 'Cubism' for similar
reasons, only to see
-Original Message-
From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
The appeal of that kind of model is based on the illusion that we can
remember past experiences. We can't remember past experiences at all,
actually. We only experience memory because of the _current_ way our
From: Charles Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: FIN insanity
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:26:24 +1200
On the other hand I can't see how FIN is supposed to work, either. I
*think* the argument runs something like this...
Even if you have just had, say, an atom bomb
, or is it just quantum immortality
specifically that you find crazy?
#3 isn't crazy the way the FIN is, but it's wrong and as I said above
it's based on the illusion of remembering past experiences.
It would be possible to believe in #3 without believing in quantum
immortality, of course...I
-Original Message-
From: Jesse Mazer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Well, I hope you'd agree that which observer-moment I am
right now is not a
matter of definition, but a matter of fact. My opinion is
that the global
measure on all observer-moments is not telling us something
like
From: Jacques Mallah [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FIN Again (was: Re: James Higgo)
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 17:51:46 -0400
From: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't understand your objection. It seems to me that it is perfectly
coherent to imagine a TOE which includes
September 2001 2:32 p.m.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: FIN too
From: Charles Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Um, OK, I don't want to get into an infinite argument here.
I guess we both
understand the other's viewpoint. (For the record: I don't
see any reason
to accept QTI as correct, but think
there is an experience x such
that I don't survive x. To believe in immortality
is to believe that for all experience I survive x.
If you don't understand the word survive you should be agnostic
about FIN (your term).
Now I agree with you: it can be argued that the immortality is build
in in comp. No problem
as a
severed head, or . . . what??? Just curious!
Charles
-Original Message-
From: Charles Goodwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, 4 September 2001 1:42 p.m.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: FIN too
Um, OK, I don't want to get into an infinite argument here. I
guess we
Jacques Mallah wrote:
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are different versions of QTI (let's not call it FIN).
I'm certainly not going to call it a theory. Doing so lends it an a
priori aura of legitimacy. Words mean things, as Newt Gingrich once said
in
one of his smarter
.
To: Everything-list
Subject: Re: FIN
Hello Jacques
On 01-Sep-01, Jacques Mallah wrote:
Hello. (This is not posted to the list as you just replied to me
directly. If that was unintentional you can sent replies to
the list,
I'm just pointing it out.)
Ok, although I would say
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
There are different versions of QTI (let's not call it FIN). The most
reasonable one (my version, of course) takes into account the possibility
that you find yourself alive somewhere else in the universe, without any
-Original Message-
From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
The problem is that the probability isn't 0% that you'd find yourself at
your current age (according to the QTI - assume I put that after every
sentence!). Because you HAVE to pass through your current age to reach
) observational evidence - that being the point on
which we differ.
Um, no, I still don't understand your view. I think the point that
Bayesian reasoning would work with 100% reliability, even though the FIN is
technically compatible with the evidence, is perfectly clear. Any reason
-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
This case bothers me too. The initial (or perhaps traditional)
response is that consciousness is lost the instant blood pressure
drops in the brain, a few hundred milliseconds after the neck is
severed, thus the
Charles Goodwin wrote:
Another question is what happens in cases of very violent death, e.g. beheading.
After someone's head is cut off, so they say, it
remains conscious for a few seconds (I can't see why it wouldn't). According to QTI
it experiences being decapitated but then
survives
Charles Goodwin, [EMAIL PROTECTED], writes:
Another question is what happens in cases of very violent death,
e.g. beheading. After someone's head is cut off, so they say, it remains
conscious for a few seconds (I can't see why it wouldn't). According to
QTI it experiences being decapitated
From: Charles Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Jacques Mallah wrote]
But there's one exception: your brain can only hold a limited amount
of information. So it's possible to be too old to remember how old you
are. *Only if you are that old, do you have a right to not reject FIN
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are different versions of QTI (let's not call it FIN).
I'm certainly not going to call it a theory. Doing so lends it an a
priori aura of legitimacy. Words mean things, as Newt Gingrich once said in
one of his smarter moments.
The most
Hello Jacques
On 01-Sep-01, Jacques Mallah wrote:
Hello. (This is not posted to the list as you just replied to me
directly. If that was unintentional you can sent replies to the list,
I'm just pointing it out.)
Ok, although I would say to be more precise that you should
identify
Jacques Mallah wrote:
It's nice that you reject FIN! Of course, those who support it can give
(and have given) no reason ...
Surely this is an exageration. I recall that I am still waiting for
you showing a flaw in the UDA (the Joel version).
But here you betraye yourself:
... since
Charles Goodwin wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On the other hand I can't see how FIN is supposed to work, either. I
*think* the argument runs something like this...
Even if you have just had, say, an atom bomb dropped on you, there's
, in 99.9(etc)% of the universes that
contain you?
It's nice that you reject FIN! Of course, those who support it can give
(and have given) no reason, since it's a nonsensical belief.
From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
The problem is that the probability isn't 0% that you'd find
From: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't understand your objection. It seems to me that it is perfectly
coherent to imagine a TOE which includes both a universal objective
measure on the set of all observer-moments and also a relative conditional
probability which tells me what the
Hi, I have just joined this list after seeing it mentioned on the Fabric of Reality
list
Would someone mind briefly explaining what FIN is (or at least what the letters stand
for)? Is it some version of QTI (Quantum
theory of immortality) ?
Assuming it *is* related to QTI...
Why should
that you do not
find
yourself so old gives their hypothesis a probability of about 0 that it
is
the truth. However, they hold fast to their incomprehensible beliefs.´´
According to FIN, however, the probability of being alive at all is
almost
zero, which contradicts our experience of being alive
of
implementations must be what determines the measure.
That's why leaping is a necessary part of the Fallacious Immortality
Nonsense (FIN). The mind must be associated with an implementation, and if
it termintates that measure then is said to (in effect) leap to the
remaining implementations. (Although
the MWI), but at least there are some MWIers on that list I would
think.
Would someone mind briefly explaining what FIN is (or at least what the
letters stand for)? Is it some version of QTI (Quantum
theory of immortality) ?
Yes, any version of QTI is FIN.
Why should a typical observer find
to FIN, however, the probability of being alive at all is
almost
zero, which contradicts our experience of being alive.
Whatchya mean? I wouldn't mind acquiring a new argument against FIN
to
add to the ones I give, but your statement doesn't appear to make any
sense.
You wrote earlier
this line of reasoning, but I can offer
some arguments in favor of it.
I guess you mean in favor of FIN. How about against it too, since you
have mixed feelings?
The insane view however holds that the mind of the killed twin
somehow leaps into the surviving twin at the moment he would
so old gives their hypothesis a probability of about 0 that it is
the truth. However, they hold fast to their incomprehensible beliefs.´´
According to FIN, however, the probability of being alive at all is almost
zero, which contradicts our experience of being alive.
Whatchya mean? I
a probability of
about 0 that it is the truth. However, they hold fast to their
incomprehensible beliefs.´´
According to FIN, however,the probability of being alive
at all is almost zero, which contradicts our experience of being
alive.
Saibal
41 matches
Mail list logo
