I should have said "a countable set of countable histories".

## Advertising

Tom -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 15:05:39 -0500 Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality (was Re: Quantum Suicide) Bruno, So why is it that from the 3rd person point of view everyone dies?

`Also along the lines of the "Let There Be Something" thread, isn't it`

`also true that a finite set of finite histories, or even a countable`

`set of infinite histories, is of measure zero in the continuum? If this`

`is the type of selection that is being made from The Multiverse (whose`

`measure >= measure(continuum)) to the "initial" multiverse(s) of your`

`and others' theories, then by the same argument that you use to show`

`that the probability of dying is zero, doesn't this imply that the`

`probability of having such an "initial" multiverse is zero?`

`I may be in over my head, but if my "Let There Be Something" inquiry is`

`correct, then we're all in over our head.`

Tom -----Original Message----- From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Everything-List List <everything-list@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 13:27:27 +0100 Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality (was Re: Quantum Suicide) Le 28-oct.-05, à 17:54, GottferDamnt a écrit (for-list):

Hi, I would like talk about this quote from an old topic:This is a rather shocking conclusion. We are conscious here and now because our (computational state) belongs to aleph_1 (or 2^aleph_0 for those who doesn't want to rely on Cantor's continuum hypothesis) infinite computational histories ! Remember Brice deWitt shock when he realised that at each instant he is multiplied by 10^100. Now it seems that we are multiplied by the continuum (!) (Moreover this is coherent with the Z modal logics). So it seems you are completely right Bob (at least formally), and Russell Standish is also right when he said :"Therefore QTI and the existence of cul-de-sac branches are a mutual contradiction". The pruning of "dead-end" corresponds to the adding of consistency (the modal diamond <>) in the modal definition of observation. BrunoWhat about these cul-de-sac branches? Is It definitely that

"dead-end"

branches can exist with the quantum theory of immortality (for

example,

a state of consciousness which can't be follow)? And how comp' Bruno theory manage these cul-de-sac branches?

I believe that the quantum theory does not allow cul-de-sac branches.

`I also believe that the Godel-Lob theory of self-reference not only`

`allow cul-de-sac branches, but it imposes them everywhere: from all`

`alive states you can reach a dead end.`

`The Universal Dovetailer Argument shows that the physics (which has no`

`dead ends) should be given by the self-reference logics (with reachable`

`dead end everywhere).`

I have been stuck in that contradiction a very long time ...

`... until I realized the absolute necessity of distinguishing the first`

`and third person point of views. That necessity is implied itself by`

`the incompleteness phenomena, but that is technical (ask me on the`

`everything-list if interested).`

`The intuitive point here is that you cannot have a first person point`

`of view on your own death: 1-death is not an event, and should be kept`

`out of the domain of verification of probabilistic statements. Another`

`intuition: the finite histories are of measure null among the`

`collection of all histories (the continuum).`

Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/