Tom Caylor wrote:
Stathis wrote:
>Scouring the universe to find an exact copy of RM's favourite marble may seem a very inefficient method of duplication, but when it comes to conscious observers in search of a successor OM, the obvious but nonetheless amazing fact is that nobody needs to search or somehow bring the the observer and the OM together: if the successor OM exists anywhere in the plenitude, then the mere fact of its existence means that the observer's consciousness will continue.

What feature of the universe(s) causes you to be able to say that the dead OM continues to be conscious rather than continues to be dead? Aren't there just as many universes (or more?) or future moments in this universe, where there is no conscious OM? It seems like it's a wash (unknown) when it comes to being able to claim the existence of immortality or not, based on that type of argument.

How is this basically different to surviving the next minute? You are *far* more likely to be dead almost everywhere in the universe than you are to be alive. The "common sense" answer to this would be that you survive the next mimute due to the continuous existence of your physical body. But once you accept that this is not necessary for survival, because as we have discussed before your physical body completely changes over time, and because if something like teleportation were possible it would mean destroying your body in one place and rebuilding it in a different place, possibly also a different time, then I think the conclusion above is inevitable. The only way you could *not* be immortal is if there is no successor OM after your earthly demise, anywhere or ever.

--Stathis Papaioannou

Have fun with your mobile! Ringtones, wallpapers, games and more.

Reply via email to