You can't commit suicide. That would involve a passage of time from a moment before the suicide to a moment after it. Such a passage of time is not an objective feature of reality (although there is a universe with 'you' pre-suicide, one with a dead 'you' post-suicide, and one with a live 'you' post-suicide.
And Descartes was plain wrong, too. All we know is 'there is a thought' - not that there is an I. Why do you have to jump from 'there is a thought' to the idea that you are an independent 'self' undegoing successive experiences in time? It's a massive leap, completely wrong, and the source of 90% of the conundra on this list. James > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, 22 February, 2000 4:49 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Quantum Time Travel > > In a message dated 02/21/2000 2:38:26 PM Pacific Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > This shit's sounding sillier by the second. > > I'll note, once again, that "quantum suicide" does not *move* you > > to the surviving branches. Those branches would have existed anyway. > All > > it does is kill off what would have been perfectly acceptable copies of > > you. > > I could argue that my version of time travel instead of killing off > branches > that would have existed anyway, CREATES new branches where you are not > there, > that is creates those branches where your suicide is successful, and > preserves those branches where your suicide is not successful. This > argument, > however, would fall on deaf ears especially if those ears are connected to > a > head that believes in an absolute objective reality. No one, however, has > any > proof of any objective reality. The only fundamental fact which is > knowable > is a purely subjective fact, "I think," as Descartes said. > > No matter how you look at it, the whole justification for QS depends on > the > assumption that there is no decrease in "measure" as seen by the first > person, which in turns depends on the renormalization of measure at > everypoint. Since I do not buy the concept of objective reality, I do not > believe that measure decreases as seen by the first person, and therefore > I > believe that measure is renormalized at every point as seen by the > observer. > This is where Jacques and I differ. He believes in an objective and > absolute > reality and I believe in a relative and subjective one. > > This being said, I am absolutely opposed to QS on moral principles. I > think > that is is possible to evolve a morality emergent from a relativistic > point > of view of the world. > > George Levy
