On 20 Oct 2013, at 09:33, Jason Resch wrote:




On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au > wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 07:33:42PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au >wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 06:02:14PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
> > > Across the many worlds you will find a nearly continuous spectrum of
> > > persons from those just like you to those like someone else, and
> > everything
> > > in between. Any suggestion of a discrete border that defines where Brent
> > > ends and someone else begins would be completely arbitrary.
> > >
> > > Jason
> >
> > This is what Parfitt argues in his Napoleon thought experiment. I
> > don't agree that this is at all obvious. It seems likely to me
> > that there are vast gulfs of non-conscious configurations in between > > say you and me, without there being a continuous path linking us in
> > the Multiverse.
>
>
> If there is anything in reality that knows what it is like to be you, and
> knows what it is like to be me, then we are both it.
>

That seems a big "if".

Well, as one who's theory of everything derives from the theory of nothing, is the existence of such a being not guaranteed by that theory?


>
>
> > In such a case, universalism makes no sense.
> >
> >
>
> I think the evolution of a person which eventually leads to all possible
> states is only one of the arguments in support universalism.

What is this evolution you speak of?


The immortality of computationalism/many worlds, coupled with the infinite variation in reality.


> Other
> arguments exist, which are well articulated in Arnold Zuboff's "One self:
> The logic of experience".
>
> Jason
>

OK - I've downloaded this paper and added it to my backlog. Will
peruse sometime in the next 5 years :).



Universalism is not only the theory of Arnold Zuboff, but also the theory of Erwin Schrodinger, Fred Hoyle, Freeman Dyson, Kurt Godel, Bruno Marchal (I believe)

OK.
(and I think it follows from comp, but I would not insist on this, because we don't need this to understand that physics comes from the numbers, and it might be a too big novelty for many people, who seems very attached to their particular instantiations).

It looks like the "God of the machines" is so cool, that you might have some choice to keep some particularist intermediate realities, before killing completely the "little ego". Something similar is described by Tibetan buddhist, although buddhists would emphasize usually the need to eventually liberate your higher self from any "little ego". We have the choice. Nothing urged. Shortcut exists, but no one enforces them.

Bruno


and Aldous Huxley. Zuboff is also the inventor of the sleeping beauty problem (if that gives you any additional incentive to read his paper).

Jason


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to