Re: Quantum immortality

> On 19 Sep 2019, at 12:22, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 5:02 AM John Clark > wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 5:54 AM Jason Resch > wrote: > > > This is exactly the break that occurred going from mind-brain ident

Re: Quantum immortality

> On 17 Sep 2019, at 00:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:53 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > On 16 Sep 2019, at 05:51, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: >> On 9/15/2019 6:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrot

Re: Quantum immortality

> On 16 Sep 2019, at 14:17, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 8:34 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > With mechanism [...] > > Bruno, I really wish you wouldn't start long paragraphs with those two words > because when you do I don't know if I agree with yo

Re: Quantum immortality

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 5:02 AM John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 5:54 AM Jason Resch wrote: > > *> This is exactly the break that occurred going from mind-brain identity >> theory to multiple-realizability theories >> (functionalism/computationalism/mechanism). It's the conventional mea

Re: Quantum immortality

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 5:54 AM Jason Resch wrote: *> This is exactly the break that occurred going from mind-brain identity > theory to multiple-realizability theories > (functionalism/computationalism/mechanism). It's the conventional meaning > implied by mechanism that there's no identity (one

Re: Quantum immortality

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, 7:18 AM John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 8:34 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > *With mechanism* [...] > > I thought I knew what "mechanism" mente today but quickly realized I was > entirely wrong because immediately after those two words you added "*you > are not

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/18/2019 1:07 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: That means that you certainly cannot become an earlier version of yourself, because that would not be a continuation of your current mental state. If you die, you might continue as a copy that was made at the instant of death, but nothing else could

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 18:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 4:06 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 08:37, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:43 PM Telmo Menezes >>> wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 22:56, Bruce Kellett w

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 4:06 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 08:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:43 PM Telmo Menezes >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 22:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:53 AM Bruno Marchal wrote:

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 08:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:43 PM Telmo Menezes > wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 22:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:53 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> On 16 Sep 2019, at 05:51, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <

Re: Quantum immortality

gt; argument and without QI, you should have never find yourself young... But > somewhere just before your death. > > > ASSA is not a law of physics. I am not assuming random sampling from anything. > It is just that you spend more time old than young given quantum immortality

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/17/2019 10:01 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 05:18:51PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum immortality is true, then we should

Re: Quantum immortality

been given here before is that if quantum > > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people > > who are considerably older than the normal life expectancy -- and we > > do not see people who are two or three hundred years old. Even if the >

Re: Quantum immortality

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 05:18:51PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: > > > On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum > > immortality is true, then we should expect to see

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:25 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 9/17/2019 3:36 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:43 PM Telmo Menezes > wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 22:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/17/2019 3:36 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:43 PM Telmo Menezes > wrote: On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 22:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:53 AM Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: On 16 Sep 201

Re: Quantum immortality

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:43 PM Telmo Menezes wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 22:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:53 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 16 Sep 2019, at 05:51, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > On 9/15/2019 6:1

Re: Quantum immortality

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 22:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:53 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 16 Sep 2019, at 05:51, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >> wrote: >>> On 9/15/2019 6:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: And memory is fallible, and memory of age has no more meanin

Re: Quantum immortality

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:53 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 16 Sep 2019, at 05:51, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> 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 bigg

Re: Quantum immortality

> On 16 Sep 2019, at 05:58, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 9/15/2019 6:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If in H you are multiplied in W and M, but directly killed in M, you survive in W with probability one. That is why we add p or <>t to []p to transform t

Re: Quantum immortality

>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:55 AM Jason Resch >>> <mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Bruce Kellett >>> <mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent

Re: Quantum immortality

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 6:18:29 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 8:34 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > *With mechanism* [...] > > > Bruno, I really wish you wouldn't start long paragraphs with those two > words because when you do I don't know if I agree with you

Re: Quantum immortality

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 8:34 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > *With mechanism* [...] Bruno, I really wish you wouldn't start long paragraphs with those two words because when you do I don't know if I agree with you or not. Please be more specific and spell out exactly what assumptions you're starting

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/15/2019 6:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If in H you are multiplied in W and M, but directly killed in M, you survive in W with probability one. That is why we add p or <>t to []p to transform the logic of belief ([]p) into a probability logic ([]p & <>t). Suppose you live a few seconds in

Re: Quantum immortality

via Everything List mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote: On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum > immortality is true, t

Re: Quantum immortality

m>> wrote: If the only relevance you can find for many worlds is quantum immortality, then many worlds is indeed dead. Quantum immortality has been shown many times to be a complete nonsense. Really. I did not known that. Cou

Re: Quantum immortality

it, so you have to assign a measure for observations that is given by >>> the summation of the squared modulus of the states that correspond to those >>> observations. The information about personal identity must then also be >>> extracted from the wavefunction, so one canno

Re: Quantum immortality

to:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> >> wrote: >> On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum >> > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people >> > who

Re: Quantum immortality

> wrote: >>> On 11 Sep 2019, at 01:30, Bruce Kellett >> <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: >>>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>>>>> On 8 Sep 2019, at 13:59, Bruce Kellett >>>>> <mailto:bhkellet

Re: Quantum immortality

> On 13 Sep 2019, at 13:53, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:14 AM Quentin Anciaux > wrote: > > > Wel if by "dualist soul" you mean something immaterial about our > > consciousness (like I don't know information) can be duplicated then yes it > > is

Re: Quantum immortality

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 at 14:30, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 9/13/2019 3:12 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 at 06:38, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 9/1

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/13/2019 3:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:28 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: ... I don't have to remember everything that happened over 80yrs to know I'm 80yrs old.  In fact I only need to remember

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/13/2019 3:12 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 at 06:38, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 9/12/2019 11:59 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 14:49, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkellet

Re: Quantum immortality

On Friday, September 13, 2019, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 8:25 AM Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:28 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >>> I don't have to remember everything that happened over 80yrs to kn

Re: Quantum immortality

squared modulus of the states that correspond to those observations. The information about personal identity must then also be extracted from the wavefunction, so one cannot insert this in an ad hoc way. Quantum immortality is therefore wrong because the measure of the states that correspond t

Re: Quantum immortality

On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 8:25 AM Jason Resch wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:28 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> I don't have to remember everything that happened over 80yrs to know I'm >> 80yrs old. In fact I only need to remember my birt

Re: Quantum immortality

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 5:25 PM Jason Resch wrote: > > Without an ever expanding memory, you are limited to experiencing at most > M^2 states, where M is your memory capacity in bits. If M is finite, then > infinite years don't matter, you will begin to revisit previous states. > > Correction: t

Re: Quantum immortality

>>>> >>>>> On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>>>> > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum >>>>> > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people >>>>> > who are co

Re: Quantum immortality

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 at 06:38, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 9/12/2019 11:59 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 14:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> ... >> >> Your RSSA assumption is effectively a dualist model -- ther

Re: Quantum immortality

ign a measure for observations that is > >> given by the summation of the squared modulus of the states that > >> correspond to those observations. The information about personal > >> identity must then also be extracted from the wavefunction, so one > >> cannot

Re: Quantum immortality

then also be extracted from the wavefunction, so one cannot insert this in an ad hoc way. Quantum immortality is therefore wrong because the measure of the states that correspond to extremely old observers is small. The same reasoning would apply to “quantum suicide”, where it is clear th

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/12/2019 11:59 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 14:49, Bruce Kellett > wrote: ... Your RSSA assumption is effectively a dualist model -- there is only one soul that makes you really you, and that soul goes at random int

Re: Quantum immortality

ument that has been given here before is that if quantum > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people > who are considerably older than the normal life expectancy -- and we &g

Re: Quantum immortality

. The information about personal identity must then also be extracted from the wavefunction, so one cannot insert this in an ad hoc way. Quantum immortality is therefore wrong because the measure of the states that correspond to extremely old observers is small. This means that if you don’t know if yo

Re: Quantum immortality

ulb.ac.be>> On 8 Sep 2019, at 13:59, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote: If the only relevance you can find for many worlds is quantum immortality, then many worlds is indeed dead. Quantum

Re: Quantum immortality

t; >>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>>> > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum >>>> > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number o

Re: Quantum immortality

then also be extracted from the wavefunction, so one cannot insert this in an ad hoc way. Quantum immortality is therefore wrong because the measure of the states that correspond to extremely old observers is small. This means that if you don’t know if you are young or very old and have to guess

Re: Quantum immortality

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:14 AM Quentin Anciaux wrote: > *Wel if by "dualist soul" you mean something immaterial about our > consciousness (like I don't know information) can be duplicated then yes it > is dualist and any computational theory of mind is dualist in this sense > then.* Yes I agre

Re: Quantum immortality

Le ven. 13 sept. 2019 à 13:21, Bruce Kellett a écrit : > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 9:18 PM Quentin Anciaux > wrote: > >> Le ven. 13 sept. 2019 à 13:16, Bruce Kellett a >> écrit : >> >>> >>> I don't get Mallah's point here, either. I will have to look more >>> clearly at his argument against QS. I

Re: Quantum immortality

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 9:18 PM Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Le ven. 13 sept. 2019 à 13:16, Bruce Kellett a > écrit : > >> >> I don't get Mallah's point here, either. I will have to look more clearly >> at his argument against QS. I don't think that case is a clear-cut as for >> QI. The fact that I

Re: Quantum immortality

Bruce Kellett >>> wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal >>> >>> On 8 Sep 2019, at 13:59, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> >>> If the only relevance you can find for many worlds is quantum >>> immortality, then many worlds is indeed d

Re: Quantum immortality

t; On 8 Sep 2019, at 13:59, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> If the only relevance you can find for many worlds is quantum >> immortality, then many worlds is indeed dead. Quantum immortality has been >> shown many times to be a complete nonsense. >> >> >> Really

Re: Quantum immortality

.@ulb.ac.be>> >>>> On 8 Sep 2019, at 13:59, Bruce Kellett >>> <mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> If the only relevance you can find for many worlds is quantum immortality, >>>> then many worlds is indeed dead. Qua

Re: Quantum immortality

then also be extracted from the > wavefunction, so one cannot insert this in an ad hoc way. > > Quantum immortality is therefore wrong because the measure of the states that > correspond to extremely old observers is small. The same reasoning would apply to “quantum suicide”, whe

Re: Quantum immortality

gt; >>>> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Bruce Kellett >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>>>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>>>> >

Re: Quantum immortality

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 4:14 PM Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Le ven. 13 sept. 2019 à 08:03, Bruce Kellett a > écrit : > >> >> Yes. QI is possible only in a many-worlds scenario, but that does not >> necessarily mean that any many-worlds scenario implies QI. As you say, most >> of life's significant

Re: Quantum immortality

Bruce Kellett >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>>>>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/10

Re: Quantum immortality

Meeker' via Everything List < >>>>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>>>>> > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum >&

Re: Quantum immortality

hing-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote: On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a

Re: Quantum immortality

;> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>>>> > Another argument that has been given here b

Re: Quantum immortality

t; >>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>>> > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum >>>> > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of pe

Re: Quantum immortality

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:55 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 11 Sep 2019, at 01:30, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > > On 8 Sep 2019, at 13:59, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > If the only relevance you can find for many worlds is quantum immortality, > then ma

Re: Quantum immortality

/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum >>> > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people >>> > who are considerably older than the normal life expectan

Re: Quantum immortality

>>> > branch if this scenario is true. >>> >>> My argument was that each of us should find ourselves to be much older >>> than even the oldest people we know. >>> >>> >> You could be very old, but (perhaps temporarily) amnesiac. >> >&g

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/11/2019 9:55 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Why do you think that measure only increases with age? On an objective level it only decreases. There's the crux of the question.  The measure of what, or whom? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Eve

Re: Quantum immortality

#x27; via Everything List mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote: On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number

Re: Quantum immortality

om sampling from anything. It is just that you spend more time old than young given quantum immortality. That is not to say that you are never young -- of course you have to pass through all the years since your birth, one year at a time. It is just that there are more years afte

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people > who are considerably older than the normal life expectancy

Re: Quantum immortality

en also be extracted from the wavefunction, so one > cannot insert this in an ad hoc way. > > Quantum immortality is therefore wrong because the measure of the states > that correspond to extremely old observers is small. This means that if you don’t know if you are young or very old and have

Re: Quantum immortality

ng List < >>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>>> > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum >>>> > immortality is true, then we should expect to

Re: Quantum immortality

probabilities are very low, there have been an awful lot of people >> > born within the last 500 or so years -- some must have survived on our >> > branch if this scenario is true. >> >> My argument was that each of us should find ourselves to be much older >> than

Re: Quantum immortality

hing-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum >> > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people >> > who are

Re: Quantum immortality

gt; Amplify the above statement. >>>> >>>> Even Zurek, who starts from a many worlds perspective, thinks that >>>> ultimately one can abandon the non-seen worlds as irrelevant. >>> >>> But irrelevant does not mean false. So it is irrelevant

Re: Quantum immortality

c way. Quantum immortality is therefore wrong because the measure of the states that correspond to extremely old observers is small. Saibal -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop r

Re: Quantum immortality

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 7:30 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: *> Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people who > are considerably older than the normal life expectancy -- and we do not see > pe

Re: Quantum immortality

ence" (John Horgan) <https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/everything-list/NJWeGLXI2yw> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/everything-list/NJWeGLXI2yw All the posts *Re*:* Quantum immortality *are under that Topic, There is ontologically no such thing as as a fork

Re: Quantum immortality

ming random sampling from >> anything. It is just that you spend more time old than young given quantum >> immortality. That is not to say that you are never young -- of course you >> have to pass through all the years since your birth, one year at a time. It >> is just that

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 5:50 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 16:43, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> >> I think the point of quantum immortality is that everyone is immortal -- >> it is not that this is very unlikely because it happens to everyone.

Re: Quantum immortality

t assuming random sampling from >> anything. It is just that you spend more time old than young given quantum >> immortality. That is not to say that you are never young -- of course you >> have to pass through all the years since your birth, one year at a time. It >> is just

Re: Quantum immortality

gt; argument and without QI, you should have never find yourself young... But >> somewhere just before your death. >> > > ASSA is not a law of physics. I am not assuming random sampling from > anything. It is just that you spend more time old than young given quantum > immort

Re: Quantum immortality

t; somewhere just before your death. > ASSA is not a law of physics. I am not assuming random sampling from anything. It is just that you spend more time old than young given quantum immortality. That is not to say that you are never young -- of course you have to pass through all the years since

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019, at 07:01, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > *Re: Quantum immortality* > * * > ** > Noting that changing a "Subject" in an emailer does not change the Topic It's not a change of topic, it's a fork :) You can continue the origin

Re: Quantum immortality

< >>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>>> > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum >>>> > immortality is true, then we should expect to see

Re: Quantum immortality

> Re: Quantum immortality Noting that changing a "Subject" in an emailer does not change the Topic "The Delusion of Scientific Omniscience" (John Horgan) 66 posts by 12 authors a post is under in Google Groups. @philipthrift -- You received this message bec

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019, at 00:18, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: > > > On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum > > immortality is true, then we should expect to see

Re: Quantum immortality

ing-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>>> > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum >>>> > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people >>>

Re: Quantum immortality

/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum >>> > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people >>> > who are considerably older than the normal life expectancy

Re: Quantum immortality

probabilities are very low, there have been an awful lot of people >> > born within the last 500 or so years -- some must have survived on our >> > branch if this scenario is true. >> >> My argument was that each of us should find ourselves to be much older >> than

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum > > immortality is true, then we s

Re: Quantum immortality

ups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum >> > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people >> > who are considerably older t

Re: Quantum immortality

ld be very old, but (perhaps temporarily) amnesiac. Then it's strange that so many other people and photographs happen to agree with my memory.  Must be a conspiracy to hide the secret of quantum immortality.  It would certainly be unpopular once people thought about what it means. Brent

Re: Quantum immortality

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 7:18 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum > > immortality is true, the

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people who are considerably older than the normal life expectancy -- and we do not see people who are two or three

Quantum immortality

ning the interpretation of death, like with quantum immortality. If the only relevance you can find for many worlds is quantum immortality, then many worlds is indeed dead. Quantum immortality has been shown many times to be a complete nonsense. Really. I did not known that. Could you give the

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

ng-list@googlegroups.com <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> *Sent:* Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:35 PM *Subject:* Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out" On 20/05/2010, at 4:12 PM, "m.a." mailto:marty...@bellsouth.

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

gt; - Original Message - >> *From:* Stathis Papaioannou >> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com >> *Sent:* Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:35 PM >> *Subject:* Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out" >> >> >> >> >> >&

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

he state of the individual at each moment in time. On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:59 AM, m.a. wrote: > > > - Original Message - > *From:* Stathis Papaioannou > *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com > *Sent:* Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:35 PM > *Subject:* Re: Quantum

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

I am afraid you start from the 2nd step: first you accept whatever 'we' (humans) think as an evidence in the system we can absorb and evaluate (explain) and then - *in the framework of that *we imagine our science. Indeed not much more than a belief system of today. Not too different from the so ca

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

ing" so the following question, concerning Quantum Immortality, has its base in the information found in this book. 3. From what i understand, Functionalism and Computationalism implies that my consciousness will follow all the world-lines where i live at a maximum age - this considering that

Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

On 24 May 2010 23:08, John Mikes wrote: > Stathis, > > you seemed bored: you jumped into assigning a bit more to my text than it > really contained: > "...saying that we can know nothing about it at all..." > what I did not say. I spoke about a 'hypothetical' functioning of the world > (read the '

  1   2   3   4   >