Hi Bruno,

thanks for your interesting answer, I have some questions though.

 > course, as I said, this will depend of what you mean by "you". In case
 > you accept the idea of surviving with amnesia, you can even get to a
 > state where you "know" you are immortal, because your immortality is a
 > "past event".

I would equate total amnesia with death (we've been through this before, 
Stathis has written about this, if I remember correctly).

I agree with you that you can't have a universal machine stopping 
relatively to all others from it's POV; but I don't see why we can't 
think of it having total amnesia. So, for the time being, let us take 
surviving as meaning to keep (at least large parts) of one's memory.

> facts, like the continuum of many-worlds. If Loop Gravity is 100%  
> correct, and if the big bang has a finitely describable origin then  
> comp is false!

Could you elaborate? I don't see why LG should be bad news for comp?
You mean because LG proposes a fundamental spacetime quantization?
I don't see how it would falsify comp?

And why the finitely describable Big Bang? It seems you have a problem 
when there are some finite limits (outside of the effective computation 
of mind). Is this because you need the continuum in the AUDA to get 
Quantum logic or something like that?

> Our bodies can be considered programmed to stop (by sex and death),  
> our soul just cannot, there is always a consistent continuation (even  
> without amnesia 

Why do you believe that latter?

> In arithmetic there are even histories where each time your  
> "brain" dysfunction some alien white rabbits give you a new suitable  
> brain, update it with suitable subroutines, and let you continue your  

What continuations are possible in arithmetic? I would like to warn 
against the approach of taking conceivability/ "humand mind" logical 
possibility as a criterion (as you seem to suggest with saying that "the 
transporter failed" is a consistent extension). The criterion for 
continuation must be arithmetic possibility, and here, I don't see any 
formal or even informal way to get to "worlds" in the anthropocentric sense.

> opportunity to go through the UDA (seventh step) again with Kim. I  
> suggest you polish your argument against comp-immortality until then,  
> perhaps.

Will do :-) But I think beforehand we should clear up any mutual 
misunderstandings; you have obviously been thinking about these things 
for a long time, and you have made connections/inferences which may not 
be as obvious as you think.

BTW: thanks for your modal logic post (the Dt explanation), here again 
the above mentioned issue crops up: while the modal logic may be 
elemental, your interpretation of them is certainly not.

Often it is the interpretation that does all the work (consider for 
instance Einstein's SR: the mathematics was there before, he "just" 
suggested a new interpretation by adding postulates (Principle of 
Relativity for electrodynamics, c as constant speed of light)).

These interpretation issues are often played down, but they are in fact 


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

Reply via email to