>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.
You continue to characterize those who disagree with you on this issue as insane. Do you mean this literally? Or is it just a rhetorical technique, argument by intimidation and rudeness? It's not unusual to have serious and even bitter philosophical and technical disagreements in the sciences. But I don't recall seeing any where the disputants stooped so low as to characterize their opponents as insane. It's especially bizarre when we are dealing with such difficult and ambiguous questions. Even the definitions we use are slippery and may mean different things to different people. Disagreement in such an area is inevitable. Perfectly rational people may come to different conclusions, as in any challenging intellectual area. We lack consensus on nearly every fundamental question in the multiverse model. What is measure, what is an implementation, what constitutes a mind, what is the reference set for all observers, how does time fit in, what characterizes the set of all universes? It is arrogance of the highest order to claim that your particular guesses at answers and interpretations of these questions are the only right ones. It goes far beyond that to claim that those who find other answers are insane. I suggest that you abandon this rhetorical technique and open your mind slightly. The path to truth is difficult and no one person has a monopoly. Calling those who disagree insane can only hurt the exchange of information and slow progress for everyone. Hal Finney