I don't often post on this board, but I follow it quite frequently,
and perhaps I might inject a 'fresh voice' to rescue this thread of a
cul-de-sac of its own. It's essentially buddhist in nature rather than
mathematical or computational, so forgive me if I appear presumptuous,
or off topic, or whatever. It is this:
If you believe that there are persons, then the persons you believe in
will certainly die.
If you take yourself to be a person, then by implication, you too will
die. (That whole "Man is mortal; Socrates is a man; Socrates is
But if you realize that there has never been a person to begin with,
then your fears of death must evaporate, for what has never come into
existence surely can never go out of it.
What does it mean to "be a person"? Really, literally, from the
inside, 1p viewpoint? Yes, we can talk about it -- in terms of the
things we see, the mental states we are in, the sensations we are
having at the moment, and the meanings of those sensations, but is
there really a person there after this analysis is complete? Indeed,
can the analysis ever be completed?
Please, consider this.
On Nov 2, 9:38 pm, Nick Prince <nickmag.pri...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 1 November 2011 21:07, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 01:07:31PM -0700, Nick Prince wrote:
> > > This is where I am coming from:
> > > I accept decoherence as the mechanism for suppressing interference
> > > between universes and that this happens very quickly (no time for us
> > > to notice). So assuming the everett interpretation, there is no
> > > collapse and there are two consciousnesses in equations like (3)
> > > representing "my consciousness" in two separate [infinite] bundles of
> > > universes). However they are no longer in a superposition (i.e. there
> > > is no interference between them going on, or as you say, off diagonal
> > > terms in the density matrix are virtually gone). So at each
> > > differentiation me and my different consciousnesses diverge. We have
> > > the same history (memories) but different futures.
> > Just a note on terminological confusion. Superposition, AFAIK, just means a
> > linear combination of states. Therefore, two full decohered universes
> > are still in superposition, just no longer coherent.
> > Am I getting this wrong?
> > No I think it's me, I should have said "are no longer in a coherent
> > superposition" thanks please do pick me up on anything I get wrong, my QM
> > is a bit shaky.
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