On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 02:33:54AM -0500, Jason Resch wrote: > On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Russell Standish > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 07:33:42PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > > 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? >
That theory is that all possible experiences are in fact experienced. Why does being you and me simultaneously consitute a possible experience? It does not follow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > OK - but only if there exist consious paths between all possible states. That is what I doubt. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
