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 <david.ny...@gmail.com> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to