The QTI, or the more general comp immortality, or arithmetical
immortality is a complex subject, if only because it depends on
you mean by "you".
Can you be more specific on this?
Do you know Kripke semantic? A Kripke frame is just a set (of
called worlds) with an accessibility relation among the worlds. In
modal logic they can be used to characterize modal logical systems.
The basic idea is that p is true in world alpha, if p is true in
the worlds accessible from alpha. Dually, <>p is true in alpha is p
true in at least one world accessible from alpha. For example the
p -> p will be satisfied in all reflexive frames---independently
the truth value of p. (a frame is reflexive if all the worlds in
frame access to themselves; for all alpha alpha R alpha, with R the
Sorry but I have no experience in this area but I can see that if yoU
adopt non classical logic then it opens up all sorts of
possibilities. Testing the consequences in reality is the tricky
part. tHE Quantum mechanical formalism has been successful in so
many respects so it gives us some confidence of being on the right
Then, as other have already mentioned, what will remain unclear
hard to compute) is the probability that you survive through some
memory backtracking. The cat might survive in the worlds where he
been lucky enough to not participate to that experience, and, for
we know, such consistent continuation might have bigger weight than
surviving through some quantum tunnel effect saving the brain's cat
from the poison. The computation here are just not tractable, if we
assume quantum mechanics, and still less, assuming only the comp
hypothesis. The only certainty, assuming comp or QM, is that "you"
cannot die. But obviously you can become amnesic of some part, if
all, your existence, or you existences. Like Otto Rossler summed up
well : consciousness is a prison. With comp, and I think with QM,
there is no escapes from being conscious, in a way or another. I
like that, but then it is a consequence of those theories.
Consciousness could be a prison yes. but MWI may be false of course,
in which case maybe not. If comp says yes it is - as you suggest,
then that's another matter. The question then is: is comp more
fundamental than QM and if this be the case, should there not be some
way we can utilise its predictive capabilities to distinguish (prove?)
which interpretation of QM is the right one?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at