# Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

```
On 12 Nov 2013, at 03:38, LizR wrote:```
```
```
```On 12 November 2013 14:14, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 11/11/2013 4:29 PM, LizR wrote:
```
```On 12 November 2013 13:03, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 11/11/2013 3:39 PM, LizR wrote:
```
```On 12 November 2013 09:37, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 11/11/2013 11:21 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
```
You find you every day, according to you, every day should not happen, only being 10 ¹ ⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰ is likely, it's just non-sense, your life is not random sampled, yesterday happen before today and before tomorrow. That doesn't make today less likely than tomorrow.
```
```
Sure, but it makes the interval (0,75) less likely than the interval (75, inf).
```
```
Unless you're Billy Pilgrim from "Slaughterhouse 5" this argument doesn't make sense, beause you are forced to sample your days in ascending order.
```
```
But what does that have to do with the probabilities? A "sample" is when I ask myself, how probable is it that my age is what it is today. I don't have to do this everyday. In fact I'm very unlikely to have done it before age 4. So I don't see why sequence is determinative. ISTM is only implies that tomorrow will be less likely than today (since I may not ask tomorrow; possibly because I'm dead).
```
```
Sequence is determinative because that's how the universe works. Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day, to the last syllable of recorded time. That's the second law doing its thing, and unless you've got very good reason to think otherwise, you shouldn't be surprised that it is. All we're saying is that you should be unsurprised to find yourself living your life in ascending order. You have to pass through your current age at some point, unless you die first, and you should expect to do so before you reach a greater age. If at your current age you ask how probable it is that you are your current age, the answer is 1. If you're quantum immortal then you will have the same probability every time you ask yourself that question into the indefinite future. You are always 100% likely to be your present age!
```
```
Suppose you're Benjamin Button. For him would it be OK to say it's surprising I'm only 75?
```
I don't know anything about Benjamin Button.
```
```
Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse.

```
Oh, right, like the guy in Martin Amis' "Time's Arrow" (itself a rip off from "An Age" by Brian Aldiss). Presumably according to QTI he's at the end of an infinite future lifetime, or whatever? But since he's unphysical I guess we can say what we like about him.
```
```
So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age 150?
```
```
My normal inference is that everyone dies. Apparently the QTI throws doubt on this by pointing out that we have only sampled an infinitesimal proportion of the available branches of the multiverse, and that in another infinitesimal portion there might be people who live forever (somehow).
```
```
We have strong empirical evidences that we die in the third person point of view.
```
```
We have ONE theoretical evidence that we die in the first person point of view, which is the empirical evidence for an identity link between mind-state and brain.
```
```
Both with Comp and with Everett-QM we have lost that unique theoretical evidence, because our best current explanation (comp, or QM) makes that mind-brain identity non sensical.
```
```
Religion exists because we naturally distinguish the 1p and the 3p, which led to the understanding of the difference between the notion of soul (mental person) and body (flesh and bones).
```
```
Science will completely come back when scientists will take that difference into account, and the big steps have been made by Galileo, Einstein, Everett and then completed and explained, I think, through the correct understanding of comp (intuitive and formal).
```
```
For methodological reasons, scientists have put the 1p under the rug for a long time, and some have made this into a metaphysics (something that even Aristotle has not done, although his emphasis on Nature can give that illusion). The 1p comes back under the different art of relativizing the observer's position or status.
```
Bruno

```
```
```
What is your inference from the fact that everywhere you've ever travelled has been on or near the surface of a congenial planet supplied with air, water and all the necessities of life?
```

--
```
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.
```
```
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