Dear Saibal and Russell, Does not this entire notion of "quantum immortality" assume some kind of mind/body dualism in that the mind, consciousness, is independent of the particular physical circumstances? There must be some way for the Moments, specifiec in #1, to be "strung together" in a first person way. This is, IMHO, strongly implied in Marchal's ideas using the UD. Even Barbour's "time capsules" imply this. I must confess to a bias toward dualistic models, particularly Vaughan Pratt's Chu space transform based idea, but this is something that is implied but does not seem to ever be discussed. Why?
Stephen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 7:27 AM Subject: Re: Quantum accident survivor > I have always found the RSSA rather strange. From the discussion between > Mallah and Maloney: > > http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m1362.html > > > > one must first define "you". There are three reasonable > > > possibilities in the ASSA: > > > 1. One particular observer-moment. You have no past and no future. > > > 2. A set of observer moments linked by computation. With this > > > definition the problem is that "you" may be two (or more) people > > > at the same time! The advantage with this definition is that one > > > can predict effective probabilities of what "you" will see at other > > > times similar to what you want to do with the RSSA. Thing is, if > > > there is nonconservation of measure, the predictions start to differ > > > from the RSSA about things like how old you should expect to be. > > > Remember, testable prediction do NOT depend on definitions, so it is > > > often better to use def. #1 to prevent such confusion. > > > 3. A particular implementation of an extended computation. Similar to > > > 2; allows death, when that implementation ends. I prefer this or > #1. > > #1 seems the most reasonable option to me. You do away with the reference > class problem. Also it is fully consistent with ''normal'' physics. > > Saibal > > > > ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht ----- > Van: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Aan: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Verzonden: Sunday, November 02, 2003 05:45 AM > Onderwerp: Re: Quantum accident survivor > > > > I disagree. You can only get an effect like this if the RSSA is > > invalid. You've been on this list long enough to remember the big > > debates about RSSA vs ASSA. I believe the ASSA is actually contrary to > > experience - but never mind - in order to get the effect you want you > > would need an SSA that is neither RSSA nor ASSA, but something *much* > > weirder. > > > > Cheers snip