> Le Lundi 20 Juin 2005 18:21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
>> 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?
> An OM (Observer Moment) by definition must contains a conscious observer... If
> it's not the case... I don't understand the concept at all.
Thanks, Quentin. I should rephrase my question to Stathis: What feature of the universe(s) causes you [or anyone] to be able to say that the dead [person] 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 [person with that identity]? 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.
In fact, Staphis, you and Hal concluded that everyone is immortal (in the "death" thread). I take this to mean that every person that is associated with every OM is immortal, since every OM has a successor. This implies to me that we don't need to worry about copying, or which copying method is good for creating more successor OMs, since we are guaranteed to always have a successor OM. It sounds like this discussion probably would go into dividing in infinity of one cardinality by an infinity with another cardinality. This is very problematic to say the least, since you have to get the cardinalities of both infinities right. This leads me to believe that the chances of coming up with the right answer are almost like the chances of coming up with the right answer to a problem by dividing by zero.