On 9/17/2019 3:36 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:43 PM Telmo Menezes <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 22:56, Bruce Kellett wrote:
    On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:53 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

        On 16 Sep 2019, at 05:51, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
        <[email protected]
        <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
        On 9/15/2019 6:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
        And memory is fallible, and memory of age has no more
        meaning when your age is bigger that the nameable or
        describable number, which happens very soon, relatively,
        for the immortal being trying to keep track of their birthday.

        Immortality is when you are to old to be able to even name
        your age. After that, you have always the same age.

        Nice aphorisms.  But irrelevant. The question is why don't
        we see almost everyone else as younger?

        That happens when we are not old enough, but also, we might
        always backtrack to younger people when close to death or
        when dying, …


    What utter nonsense. You cannot jump between Everett branches, so
    you cannot jump to a branch in which you were young.

    Depends on what you mean by "you".


I mean the person who has lived on this branch since birth. In every other branch in which copies exist, they occupy that space. So you can't simply "become" one of those copies on another branch -- what would happen to the one that was there? So you do not transfer memories or anything like. And you certainly can't become a younger copy of yourself.

I think it's what Bruno refers to as "indexial". He just stops pointing to one branch saying "me" and starts pointing to a surviving branch and says "me".

Brent

    Physics rules out backward causation and branch jumping.

    Physics is inconsistent with itself and fails to explain
    significant aspects of observable nature, so it doesn't really
    matter what it "rules out". We don't know enough for such bold claims.


Physics is not inconsistent with itself or else existence would be impossible! Some physical theories may be marginally inconsistent with others, but that is another matter. It does not mean that there is open slather for you to believe whatever you want, especially if that is inconsistent with well-established theories.

Bruce
--
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] <mailto:[email protected]>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQ12tqbBW6NXiaF9x4HkgTCT92MJ6K70McKMp03VQ6cRw%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQ12tqbBW6NXiaF9x4HkgTCT92MJ6K70McKMp03VQ6cRw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/794615e9-4f41-9a84-8c3a-60734c66b8e6%40verizon.net.

Reply via email to