I'm trying to define identity...
Let's write x~y if SAS's x and y (possibly in different universes) have
the same identity. I propose that this relation must be reflexive,
symmetric and transitive. This neatly partitions all SAS's into
equivalence classes, and we have no ambiguity working out
Hi,
I disagreed with some points in your argumentation...
- Original Message -
From: David Barrett-Lennard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm trying to define identity...
Let's write x~y if SAS's x and y (possibly in different universes) have
the same identity.
You did not yet 'define'
Hi,
I just have one question to clarify your position.
- Original Message -
From: Eric Cavalcanti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 6:06 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum accident survivor
But suppose you just stepped outside the Paris duplicator.
There are some problems with this as Eric has pointed out.
The best way to define identity, i.m.o., would be to say that a program is a
SAS having an identity. If that SAS experience the outcome of an experiment,
it's program will be changed by the mere fact it has acquired the memory of
the
Hi,
I believe one main issue here is the state of one's surviving consciousness.
There is no reason to believe that having consciousness is an on/off thing.
So if you do accept quantum immortality thinking, in a typical
death-scenario (a severe heart attack, say) we could imagine a survivalrate
Eric Cavalcanti, [EMAIL PROTECTED], writes:
In the case of non-destructive-copy experiment, the copy is
made in a distinct place/time from the original. They could as well be done
100,000 years in the future and in the Andromeda galaxy, and you should
as well expect to have the subjective
6 matches
Mail list logo
