Since conventional physics is sufficient
to give (at least in principle) a complete description of the human
brain, a partial ordering on the set of all possible observer moments S can be
defined as follows:
First we choose an arbitrary brain B.
If x1 and x2 are elements of S, then x1
< x2 iff both x1 and x2 can be experienced by B and an initial condition
specifying the entire state of the (conventional) universe including that of B
exists such that x1 is experienced by B at some time t1 and x2 is experienced
at some time t2 and t1 < t2.
On any totally ordered subset of S one thus
also has a definition of time. So, even if one believes that nothing but OM's
exists, one can still define useful concepts on S.
Saibal
 Original Message 
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 7:07
AM
Subject: Re: QTI
The point is, 'you' have no 'age'. An observer
moment exists, it does not have any temporal attributes _per se_  although it
may contain externallymeaningless concepts such as 'it is 12:45pm'. The
statement, 'one OM outlives another' is a category mistake.
 Original Message 
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 4:34
PM
Subject: QTI
I also don't think that 'Quantum Theory of
Immortality' is correct in its conventional form. I do believe, however,
that a different version is implied by James' Theory of Observer
Moments. Since there exists a set S of observer moments, one element of
which represents my state now, I will ''always'' find myself in some subset of S. This doesn't mean that I
could outlive everyone. The observer moment: I am 10^1000000 years old is
simply inconsistent with I am Saibal.
I posted earlier about an article by Caticha that explains how
fundamental laws of physics (including notions such as time and space) can
be derived from nothing more than an arbitrary probability distribution
defined over some arbitrary set.
Saibal
 Original Message 
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 1:53
PM
Subject: Re: (Quantum) suicide not
necessary?
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.
There is no 'you'. 'You' don't 'travel'.
There are just different observer moments, some including 'I am Micky and
I'm, sick'.
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?
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.
 Original Message 
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001
3:30 PM
Subject: Re: (Quantum) suicide not
necessary?
*Phew!*; this afternoon I finally got
round to reading the 190odd messages I have received from this
list....
Instead of the previously discussed
suicide experiments to test various versions of manyworlds
theories, one might consider a different approach.
By deleting certain sectors of one's
memory one should be able to travel to different branches of the
multiverse. Suppose you are diagnosed with a rare disease. You
don't have complaints yet, but you will die within a year. If you
could delete the information that you have this particular disease
(and also the information that information has been deleted),
branches in which you don't have the disease merge with the
branches in which you do have the disease. So with very high
probability you have travelled to a different
branch.
I don't know whether to be relieved or
annoyed that I'm not the only person to think of this
;D.
I'm guessing this is quite a common
idea? Rats, I thought I was so great....
I _did_ think of the following today,
though:
If you take this sort of thing one step further,
an afterlife is inevitable; there will always be systems  however
improbable  where the mind lives on. For instance, you could just be
the victim of an hallucination, your mind could be downloaded, you could
be miraculously cured, and other _much_ more bizzare ones. Since you
won't be around to notice the worlds where you did die, they don't
count, and you are effectively immortal. Or at least you will perceive
yourself to live on, which is the same thing.
When I thought of it, it seemed startlingly original and clever.
Looking at the posts I have from this list, I'm beginning to suspect
it's neither.... Anyhow, while this sort of wild thinking
is wonderfully pure and cathartic, it never seems to lead
anywhere with testable or useful implications. So far,
anyway....
What's the opinion here on which are more fundamental
 minds or universes? I'd say they're both definable and hence exist de
facto, and that each implies the other.
Well, I'm new here. Is there anything I should
know about this list? Apart from the fact that everyone's so terribly
educated.... Feel free to go a bit OT ;).
Michael Rosefield, Sheffield, England
"I'm a Solipsist, and I must say I'm surprised there aren't more of
us."  letter to Bertrand Russell
