Re: (Quantum) suicide not necessary?

Sat, 3 Mar 2001 10:14:30 -0800

You miss the point. You do not go anywhere. You are this observer moment. No observer moment 'becomes' another OM, or it would be a different OM to begin with. I guess this is extremely hard for people to understand, because it denies that people exist.
----- Original Message -----
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 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.

Reply via email to