(Quantum) suicide not necessary?
Instead of the previously discussed suicide experiments to test variousversions of many-worlds theories, one might consider a different approach. By deleting certain sectors of one's memory one should be able to travelto different branches of the multiverse. Suppose you are diagnosed with a rare disease. You don't have complaints yet, but you will diewithin a year. If you could delete the information that you have thisparticular disease (and also the information that information hasbeen deleted), branches in which you don't have the diseasemerge with the branches in which you do have the disease. So withvery high probability you have travelled to a different branch.
Re: on formally describable universes and measures
Dear George, If I might advance a minor change: Descartes' dictum should be: Cognito (I think), ergo eram (therefore I was). The observation of one's state of existence is always *after* the fact of the thought. This points to the possibility that the chaining implicit in conscious flow (time) is in the opposite direction to the logical linking. Kindest regards, Stephen George Levy wrote: The exchange between Bruno and Juergens is, I believe, instructive and constructive as it forces them to refine their positions. However, while there is a need for some formalism, too much formalism gets in the way. As Einstein said, Imagination is more important than knowledge. Juergens' insistence on being absolutely formal in defining delays, is truly impossible unless a TOE is in place. And if we had a TOE, then we wouldn't waste our time arguing. His constructivist approach can never achieve the required conceptual leap. Here is a suggestion: rather than getting bogged down with attempting to define time and delays, wouldn't be simpler to start as Descartes did with the fundamental assumption of the I or I think which is the primary uncontrovertible observation and also the necessary assumption for deriving everything else. From this observation (or assumption), use anthropic reasonning to deduce that the whole observed world is a set of logically linked relationship. In other words: I think (observation of the I and the now; I am rational, logical, I understand causality) therefore I am ( rationality is the definition of existence) therefore the world is (anthropic reasoning-- the initial boundary condition for the causal chain starts with I) therefore the plenitude is (absence of irrational and acausal arbitrariness in the description of the world leads to all possible rational worlds) therefore I exists in plural (absence of arbitrariness leads to the existence of several differing I's, in fact of all possible I's.) Conscious flow (time) becomes a logical linkage between I's. In other words, the time thread from one I to the next, or more generally, from one I to several other I's is constrained by the self rationality of I. Consciousness can be described as a web in the plenitude, linking all conscious points together. George
Re: on formally describable universes and measures
Dear Stephen, I believe Descartes used the verb 'cogitare', meaning the fact of thinking (prius cogitare quam conari consuesce... consider first think, then (than??) talk) Consequently he did not assume to think back into some memory and refreshing it. He spoke about the observation that one IS THINKING, IMO without any connotation of time passing. John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pages.prodigy.net/jamikes; - Original Message - From: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 12:07 PM Subject: Re: on formally describable universes and measures Dear George, If I might advance a minor change: Descartes' dictum should be: Cognito (I think), ergo eram (therefore I was). The observation of one's state of existence is always *after* the fact of the thought. This points to the possibility that the chaining implicit in conscious flow (time) is in the opposite direction to the logical linking. Kindest regards, Stephen George Levy wrote: The exchange between Bruno and Juergens is, I believe, instructive and constructive as it forces them to refine their positions. However, while there is a need for some formalism, too much formalism gets in the way. As Einstein said, Imagination is more important than knowledge. Juergens' insistence on being absolutely formal in defining delays, is truly impossible unless a TOE is in place. And if we had a TOE, then we wouldn't waste our time arguing. His constructivist approach can never achieve the required conceptual leap. Here is a suggestion: rather than getting bogged down with attempting to define time and delays, wouldn't be simpler to start as Descartes did with the fundamental assumption of the I or I think which is the primary uncontrovertible observation and also the necessary assumption for deriving everything else. From this observation (or assumption), use anthropic reasonning to deduce that the whole observed world is a set of logically linked relationship. In other words: I think (observation of the I and the now; I am rational, logical, I understand causality) therefore I am ( rationality is the definition of existence) therefore the world is (anthropic reasoning-- the initial boundary condition for the causal chain starts with I) therefore the plenitude is (absence of irrational and acausal arbitrariness in the description of the world leads to all possible rational worlds) therefore I exists in plural (absence of arbitrariness leads to the existence of several differing I's, in fact of all possible I's.) Conscious flow (time) becomes a logical linkage between I's. In other words, the time thread from one I to the next, or more generally, from one I to several other I's is constrained by the self rationality of I. Consciousness can be described as a web in the plenitude, linking all conscious points together. George
