Re: (Quantum) suicide not necessary?

[Michael Rosefield]

> 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 the  > idea. Hey, I'm still counting it as original! I _did_ come up with it independently.... And I still can't see anything wrong with it.   Thanks for the web-site, though. > There is no 'you'. 'You' don't 'travel'. There are just different observer moments, some including 'I am Micky and > I'm, sick'. So? This is trivial. We still percieve ourselves as continuous beings, and the qualia is what I'm talking about here. The point is that one will _always_ have observer moments to go to. The illusion of self is maintained. I'm pretty sure at least one of us is misunderstanding the other. > Even thinking in your passe Newtonian terms, how can a universe in which 'you have a disease' be the same   > as one in which 'you do not have the disease', just because you don't know it? Oh.... Please don't do that. You don't know how I think, and I really don't see why you jumped to this conclusion.   The way I see it now, the observer moment is all we have. I think I may have picked up the following metaphor here, but I'll use it nonetheless:  did Jack and Jill go up the hill in August? Does it matter?   The rhyme leaves it undefined, so it's a meaningless question; they did and they didn't. We belong to all universes that generate this observer moment, and only a sort of statistical Ockham's Razor says which ones we'll perceive ourselves to be in next. What's the problem here? > 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. 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.