David, (after having missed your posts for a long time...) I wonder if my response will appear on the list, because lately some did not (maybe I have mailing-list troubles, maybe some screener finds my ideas not worthy) so with good hopes:
I had long standing discussions in the early 90s on some (more psych/philosophy oriented) lists about ob/sub-jective. [There even was an opinion saying "subj" is related to a (any) "SUBJECT" (=topic) while "obj." would be object-oriented(?).] My position was (and I made it stick after almost 2 years of fierce discussions) that what is usually called and valued, as: *objective reality*(!) (in the sense of aiming at something tangible - even only ideationally tangible) is our own *subjective virtuality* (as included into MY OWN mindset) of the mind-adjusted explanation of an information (phenomenon? relation?) that reached us. You may imagine the initial contradictory burst that was arisen initially. I did not give up, the opponents ran out of argumentation. OMs I can translate into my vocabulary, but Q-immortality and teleport ideas I cannot, I ask what is the factor effecting (doing) all that? Even: initiating them? I don't except 'ideational' self-moving of physically termed items. Nor 'physicality' in any processes outside our "physical" box. What I am stratled by is the (higher? or) "lower" measures of OM. I use such distinctions in a context-related meaning and the context is our (physical? i.e. figmentous) worldview. Your setup seems to be "above"(<G>) such. (=Outside this box). With 'immortality' I connect our thinking in time, the ordinating relation for* this* universe and our thinking *within*, (for)'ever' is not a timely term, so "eternity" may be atemporal. - Q or not. Regards John Mikes On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:31 PM, David Nyman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Forgive me in advance if this has been covered adequately before in > the list, but the following occurs to me with respect to 'Bostrom' > style assessments of where I should expect my 'current' OM to be > situated with respect to the total population of OMs in which I exist. > > Presumably, I should expect that my current awareness of my 'life- > stage' will be characteristic of those OMs with the highest > 'measure' (a concept upon which I think I have at least a vague grasp > in this context). Ostensibly, taking into account the various points > at which I die off, one would expect that the highest such measure > would be characteristic of a later life-stage rather than an earlier, > taken across all branches in which I exist. Indeed, I don't recall > ever having been any older! > > However, assuming the co-existence of all OMs (i.e. where 'time > doesn't actually 'unfold'), should I expect ever to find myself > conscious of an OM of lower measure? What does this say about my > ostensibly conscious past experiences (i.e. those putatively > representing OMs of lower measure)? Should I conclude that 'from here > on' in terms of life-stage my survivors are on average becoming rarer > and that consequently on the basis of measure I shouldn't expect to > experience getting any older? In this case, does it further imply > that the experience of quantum immortality would make sense only in > terms of some sort of 'real' time-line along which I could expect to > actually experience an extended 'tail' of surviving conscious moments > regardless of their measure? > > I'm definitely confused. > > David > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
