Le 11-mai-06, à 13:38, Russell Standish a écrit :

> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 01:00:31PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> I think Schroedinger used the cat for explaining a paradoxical feature
>> of QM, and I have not see suggestions by him that comp leads to either
>> many world or quantum immortality (as Everett and Deutsch will do for
>> the many-world, but not the immortality question though.
>> I think that in the "priority" matter (a boring subject but then
>> friends said that I must defend myself a little bit more) the criteria
>> is the date of the publication. It is one thing to get an idea and a
>> different thing to publish it. You need to fçind the idea but also to
> James Higgo found a 1986 publication by Euan Sqires that mentions the
> immortality argument. Perhaps that's not too much earlier for you to
> claim independent discovery in your 1988 paper. Still the point is,
> its one of those ideas that's floating around anyway - in the ether,
> so to speak.


> Also the universal dovetailer idea is also one of those that is fairly
> obvious, and might have been discovered a number of times 
> independently.

I'm not sure it is so easy, and in the present case I have never heard 
about some other papers.
Frankly I am not sure you got it right. I guess it is subtle: there is 
a need of some amount in computer science to be astosnished that such a 
thing is logically possible. I will not develop this here because I 
intend to make this clear in my reply (or sequence of replies) to Tom 
and George.

> In some ways, these ideas are too simple for the issue of priority to
> be taken seriously. Perhaps, but the fame game is fickle
> indeed. Famous people are often not famous for their most important
> work. My most cited paper according to Google Scholar "On complexity 
> and
> emergence" doesn't contain any original ideas at all! (Its a digestion
> of what I've read on the topics)
> On the other hand your COMP ontological reversal idea is truly
> unique. Hopefully you are right, and it goes down in history as your
> greatest contribution to human knowledge.

Well thanks for that. In my opinion the UD, the UDA, the Universal 
Machine and Church Thesis are all deeply linked together (once in the 
TOE context).

About the priority,  I don't care so much, my point consisted mainly in 
the fact that the quantum immortality is a sub-case of comp 
immortality, which, by the way, can even be considered as a sub-case of 
the usual "Pythagorico-Platonist-Plotino-Cartesian"  argument for the 
immortality of the soul which has been proposed by the intellectual 
greeks for about a millennium in Occident (more or less -500 to +500 JC 

Then I am showing that the appearances of "persons and realities" are 
due to the incompleteness phenomena. I guess this is also a fairly 
simple idea in the air, but, like the UD, I have not seen it develop 
elsewhere, and it still gives me an hard and long time to make it clear 
as this very list can illustrate. And of course I can also be wrong, 
also. My work mainly consists in making that idea testable (and 
*partially* tested).



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to