> On 17 Sep 2019, at 00:56, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> 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,
You don’t need to jump. You are in all branches simulating the relevant digital processes. > so you cannot jump to a branch in which you were young. Physics rules out > backward causation and branch jumping. > > … may be up to something like this video below, which is an oversimplifying > view (mixing G and G* all the time) of Neoplatonism, or theology close to > Mechanism: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6fcK_fRYaI > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6fcK_fRYaI> > > You can get very old, and always believed that you are young, even a baby, > and be right on that, just by not memorising everything. > > Losing you mind when you are very old is quite common, but that does not mean > that you become young again. Indeed. Bruno > > Bruce > > > Technological immortality is a sort of egotic complacency in the Samsara, and > a sort of Procrastination of Nirvana. But why not? There is something to > contemplate here, but here is only an aspect of a bigger and simpler reality. > And there is something to contemplate there too. With Mechanism, mathematics > can give a glimpse, and evacuate some fake certainties. Nature also used some > authoritative argument sometimes... > > Bruno > > -- > 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/CAFxXSLSy%3DtB8XgPieA0bEfyRX%3Dz1aXvYyWUp1e_DdhMWmQ0p-Q%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSy%3DtB8XgPieA0bEfyRX%3Dz1aXvYyWUp1e_DdhMWmQ0p-Q%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/FEDCC32D-F1F5-4CFA-A9E6-B5758A6D4525%40ulb.ac.be.
