GottferDamnt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Said on 10 Nov
>> some branches where you can stay alive, but can you follow the
>> same branches for an eternity? For example, can you stay in a
>> box (even if it is not very probable) forever?

##
Advertising

Bruno had written on 1/11/05
> 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 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
To me that looks very relevant, and discussions on "quantum suicide"
are also very frequent, but perhaps in practice the problem of
actually dying (or indeed not dying) can be bypassed in other ways.
I mention hypnagogic myoclonus as one conceivable means to an
alternative route.
I may try to blog details sometime soon at
http://ttjohn.blogspot.com/
uv
----- Original Message -----
From: "Quentin Anciaux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <everything-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: Question for Bruno
> Le Jeudi 10 Novembre 2005 19:48, GottferDamnt a écrit :
> > I have another question: I know that with the quantum theory of
> > immortality, the non-cul-de-sac conjecture involve that there are
always
> > some branches where you can stay alive, but can you follow the
same
> > branches for an eternity? For example, can you stay in a box (even
if it
> > is not very probable) forever? It would be unlikely ^^ ! What
about that
> > within Bruno's theory?
> >
> > TR.
>
> Yes of course, if we consider that all possible "observer moment"
could exist,
> then it follow that a tiny fraction of your consistent histories
will follow
> the same branches for eternity(I have to say that I don't really
know what it
> mean to stay on the same "branche" (because I think that in fact
> consciousness is spanning over a lot/an infinity of almost identical
observer
> moment), but it is of very low measure. Now, how can we know the
measure of a
> branche through time (what is time anyway ?)... I really don't know
;)
>
> Quentin
>
>
>