> -Original Message-
> From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> >2) You would also be the same person if the surgeon made a new brain
> >identically to yours.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here. The new brain would be
> the same as the
> old you, the old one would remain t
> -Original Message-
> From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> So, I would say that you will always find yourself alive
> somewhere. But it
> is interesting to consider only our universe and ignore
> quantum effects.
> Even then you will always find yourself alive somewhere, but
Charles Goodwin wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > As I have written before, a person is just a computation being
implemented
> > somewhere. Suppose that the person has discovered that he suffers from a
> > terminal ilness and he dies
Charles Goodwin wrote:
> FIN stands for something ...invented by Jaques Mallah (in much the way
> that Fred Hoyle coined the term 'Big Bang'
Yes I like that!
The reliance by Jacques on the concept of measure is critical to his
thinking. He believes that measure is ABSOLUTE and therefore decr
That was before I joined, and I haven't had much chance to examine the archives.
Charles
> -Original Message-
> From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, 7 September 2001 1:23 p.m.
> To: Charles Goodwin
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Su
hich is
> true in the MWI (or any infinite collection of space-time slices which have the same
>laws of physics). So it actually seems at least
> a possible theory, given certain assumptions - but not easily testable in the sense
>that most theories try to be (i.e. "third person
al Message-
> From: Jesse Mazer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, 7 September 2001 7:21 a.m.
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: FIN insanity
>
>
> >From: "Charles Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sub
>From: "Charles Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: FIN insanity
>Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:26:24 +1200
>On the other hand I can't see how FIN is supposed to work, either. I
>*think* the argument runs something like
> -Original Message-
> From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> As I have written before, a person is just a computation being implemented
> somewhere. Suppose that the person has discovered that he suffers from a
> terminal ilness and he dies (the computation ends). Now in princi
> -Original Message-
> From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> >2) You would also be the same person if the surgeon made a new brain
> >identically to yours.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here. The new brain would be
> the same as the
> old you, the old one would remain t
> -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
Jacques Mallah wrote (to Charles Goodwin):
> [...] As for religion, it shows that most people are either
>ignorant, stupid, and/or irrational, since those are the only ways to
>believe in it.
If you believe that there is a clear frontier between Sciences and
Religions, it means you are beli
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
>From: "Charles Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I have had this problem trying to explain why I believe the theory of
>evolution (with 99.999...% certainty) to various religious
>types. It happens exactly as you describe. This isn't a form of insanity,
>though: it appears to be a common human trai
>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 moments.
>The most
<>
I do not know, unfortunately.
But, to me, the interesting point is this one.
About what are "these" (the only ones you personally experience)
talking about, after the explosion? Because "these", due to linearity
and superposition of states, after the explosion, and subsequent time
evoluti
Charles Goodwin wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> On the other hand I can't see how FIN is supposed to work, either. I
*think* the argument runs something like this...
>
> Even if you have just had, say, an atom bomb dropped on you, ther
> -Original Message-
> From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> At first the problem seems simple: they need someone to explain some
> physics to them and correct their misconceptions. Explaining the physics to
> them doesn't work, though. They rationalize their way around
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>So you believe these people are insane, that they are mentally ill.
>You believe that they perhaps would benefit from consulting a doctor.
>Perhaps they are even a danger to themselves or others?
Yes. Themselves primarily, but possibly others too.
>What category of
19 matches
Mail list logo
