Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
! Liz, that is the $64,000 question, what value is knowledge? With Steinhart,
I am sure he knew well about MW I and Hugh Everett's theory. The philosopher
who decades ago, I came up with what is called modal reasoning, is the guy who
actually came up with this notion of a multiverse alone. I'm too lazy to look
up his name right now, because I'm lazy nonetheless. I am not sure at all from
an emotional sense of things, that Steinhardt's work does contribute to tidings
of comfort and joy as it were? Also his book cost $86, American, on Amazon, I
am too much of a cheapskate to buy about 200 pages worth of data. I did buy
philosopher Clement Vidal's book on immortality in the cosmos, or whatever for
about $50.
-----Original Message-----
From: LizR <lizj...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Oct 26, 2014 05:16 PM
Subject: Re: "The Span of Infinity"
<div id="AOLMsgPart_2_c220507e-ccf0-4c64-8739-19619a5d34d1">
<div class="aolReplacedBody">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="aolmail_gmail_extra">
<div class="aolmail_gmail_quote">
On 26 October 2014 14:00, spudboy100 via Everything List
<span dir="ltr"><<a target="_blank"
href="mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com";>everything-list@googlegroups.com</a>></span>
wrote:
<blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
Brent, I am quite familiar with Eric Steinhardt Paterson University, NJ. He
deals philosophically as a philosopher does, with the idea of immortality, and
identity. I believe I'm not incorrect when I say he believes multiple versions
of yourself naturally occurring. However, in a comment to another philosopher
named Schwitzgebel, in California, Steinhardt stated that he believed that each
individual clone or person, is in their own world line and thus information
does not transfer from one individual, one state of the universe, to another.
Thus, a branch, from universe 1A, cannot be the same person as Brent, from
universe 2A.
</blockquote>
If quantum theory is to be believed he is probably right on the first point
(multiple copies) but incorrect on the second (no information transfer).
But if he believes the above, how did he come to these conclusions? If he did
it without knowing about Everett, that's (at least) rather impressive. But
otherwise, and going purely by what you've said, what do his conclusions
contribute?
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p></p> --
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
<a target="_blank"
href="mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com";>everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com</a>.
To post to this group, send email to
<a target="_blank"
href="mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com";>everything-list@googlegroups.com</a>.
Visit this group at
<a target="_blank"
href="http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list";>http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list</a>.
For more options, visit
<a target="_blank"
href="https://groups.google.com/d/optout";>https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.
</div>
</div>
--
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/d/optout.
