Greetings, Brent. Thanks for joining the conversation!
On 8 Nov 2003 at 14:37, Brent Meeker wrote:
> I think you are misinterpreting inflation. The cosmological
>constant produces an inflationary pressure that's proportional to
>volume, so over large distances it dominates over gravity. But o
Russel,
If you view the "observer-moments" as transitions rather than states,
then there is no need for requiring a time dimension. Each
observer-moments carries with it its own subjective feeling of time.
Different observer-moments can form vast networks without any time
requirement.
Saib
Saibal Mitra wrote:
>
> >
> > To get the effect you were suggesting would require another type of
> > SSA, about which I have complete failure of imagination.
>
> I think it is similar. You have a set of all universes which we identify
> with descriptions or programs. Embedded in these descriptio
Hi,
I found this post really thoughtful, but I didn't quite agree. Let's see if
I can argue on it:
> Doesn't this part:
> > In a materialistic framework, ' I ' am a bunch of atoms. These atoms
> > happen to constitute a system that has self-referential qualities that
> > we call consciousness. If
Readers of this list interested in issues of personal identity in the
face of replication
might enjoy the Sci-Fi novel "Kiln People" by David Brin.
In the novel, a technology
has been discovered that allows a person's "soul standing wave" (sic) to
be copied into
a kind of bio-engineered clay sub
On 7 Nov 2003 at 10:25, Joao Leao wrote:
> OK. I get your point. That "supersolipsistic" situation is rendered
> somewhat unlikely by the fact that galaxies seem to be structuraly
> stable (the dark matter issue), in other words, they do not seem to
> berak apart with the accelerated expansion. The
- Original Message -
From: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I agree that a moment from now there will be a number of exactly
> >equal copies. Nevertheless, I am sure I will only experience being
> >one of them, so this is what I mean by ' me ' - the actual experiences
> >I will hav
My message 6/11 to Alberto Gómez seems not to have gone through.
I send it again. Apology for those who did receive it.
B.
At 09:24 06/11/03 +0100, Alberto Gómez wrote:
For me there is no bigger step between to wonder
>Here is the question I wonder about. Is it meaningful for Eric01 to
>consider the concept of precisely the one Eric that he is?
>
>Or would you say that it is fundamentally impossible for a system
>(e.g. Eric01) to accurately conceive of the concept of itself as a
>completely specified and single
At 14:36 07/11/03 -0800, Hal Finney wrote:
snip
Well, I do believe in continuity of consciousness, modulo the issues
of measure. That is, I think some continuations would be more likely to
be experienced than others. For example, if you started up 9 computers
each running one copy of me (all r
10 matches
Mail list logo
