Jacques Mallah wrote:
Actually I am still waiting to see the full UDA argument! I don't
think you ever posted more than bits and pieces of it, without the precise
definitions that I requested, and you referred people to papers written in
French. But I'll check ...
The full UDA appears at
Oh, I forgot my main problem with QTI :-)
Basically it's to do with the rate at which decoherence spreads (presumably at the
speed of light?) and the finite time it takes
someone to die. So if you were shot (say) the QTI would predict that there was some
point in the process of your body
Jacques Mallah wrote:
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are different versions of QTI (let's not call it FIN).
I'm certainly not going to call it a theory. Doing so lends it an a
priori aura of legitimacy. Words mean things, as Newt Gingrich once said
in
one of his smarter
Hi, I'm sorry, it's an accident. I keep hitting 'reply' rather than 'reply to all' and
because of the way the list is set up, which
means I reply to the person who posted the message. It's a bad habit, because other
lists I post to allow you to just hit 'reply'
and your message goes to the
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
There are different versions of QTI (let's not call it FIN). The most
reasonable one (my version, of course) takes into account the possibility
that you find yourself alive somewhere else in the universe, without any
-Original Message-
From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
The problem is that the probability isn't 0% that you'd find yourself at
your current age (according to the QTI - assume I put that after every
sentence!). Because you HAVE to pass through your current age to reach
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 01-Sep-01, Jacques Mallah wrote:
There is more than that in mathematics. Structures, for example.
Anything that could be described mathematically, such as geometries,
computations, and anything that could be a model of a (hypothetical)
world.
From: Charles Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Um, OK, I don't want to get into an infinite argument here. I guess we both
understand the other's viewpoint. (For the record: I don't see any reason
to accept QTI as correct, but think that *if* it is, it would fit in with
the available (subjective)
-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
This case bothers me too. The initial (or perhaps traditional)
response is that consciousness is lost the instant blood pressure
drops in the brain, a few hundred milliseconds after the neck is
severed, thus the
Charles Goodwin wrote:
Another question is what happens in cases of very violent death, e.g. beheading.
After someone's head is cut off, so they say, it
remains conscious for a few seconds (I can't see why it wouldn't). According to QTI
it experiences being decapitated but then
survives
Charles Goodwin, [EMAIL PROTECTED], writes:
Another question is what happens in cases of very violent death,
e.g. beheading. After someone's head is cut off, so they say, it remains
conscious for a few seconds (I can't see why it wouldn't). According to
QTI it experiences being decapitated
From: Charles Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Jacques Mallah wrote]
But there's one exception: your brain can only hold a limited amount
of information. So it's possible to be too old to remember how old you
are. *Only if you are that old, do you have a right to not reject FIN on
these
12 matches
Mail list logo
