Russell wrote to Danny:
>The Grover algorithm is a form of accessing information from other worlds.
Of course the worlds need to be prepared in just the right way, of

I suppose these "other worlds" are potential life-form carrying bodies of
this (our) universe, because as far as I know we have no way(s) to access
any information from other universes  (that MAY be) - unless we take our
speculations for 'real'.

Does the "prepared" mean some adjustment to understand the diverse
situations in terms familiar to us here? that would mean a humanization
(anthropomorphization) of the non-human.
Would that be productive in the scientific sense?
to Jeanne:

>My own comment is that there are pure 1st person phenomena, and there re
1st person phenomena shared with other conscious beings. The first  variety
should not be accorded with any real significance, beyond that of a dream,
or whatever. The latter shared type is the basis of objective science. With
my TIME and PROJECTION postulates, or with
COMP, there are 1st person phenomena shared  by _all_ conscious beings. This
last type we can truly label objective.  <

The word "share"...I find it OK as 'communicate to', not as making it a
common experience. The 2nd part startled me a bit, the reference to
'objective science' may suppose that the 'time' etc. experiences would be
common and identical to all conscious beings.
First off: objective science is a model, inherited evolutionarily from
learning similar stuff from reports of those who earlier constructed them as
their 1st pers. explanations.
Secondly: even in this case every 'conscious being' makes up his own 1st
person mindstuff from such reports and not two may be completely identical.
Not even in clones. Machines: yes.
We can try to share it, but the result will be personnified by the acceptor
into 'his' 1st pers.mindcontent. Unless we introduce some "objective
knowledge" to ourselves, exempt from the minds interpretation.
That is what I would label 'truly objective'.

And once we are at you attachments, you remarked to Hal:
>...Whether eternal life in "heaven" or "hell" is your experience will
depend very much on your own actions.<

Do you consider 'eternal' a "long long time"? Does e.g.infinite mean very
much or very long? (or a small circle? G. Cantor's problem...).  I think
'eternal' is atemporal, cannot be measured 'in time', or expressed by a
timespan, so why not consider it really as timeless: when it starts it
immediately also ends instantaneously.
So heaven or hell may not last at all (ha ha).


John Mikes

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "danny mayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "everything list" <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality]

Reply via email to