I have always found the RSSA rather strange. From the discussion between
Mallah and Maloney:
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m1362.html
one must first define you. There are three reasonable
possibilities in the ASSA:
1. One particular observer-moment. You have no past and no
Dear Saibal and Russell,
Does not this entire notion of quantum immortality assume some kind of
mind/body dualism in that the mind, consciousness, is independent of the
particular physical circumstances? There must be some way for the Moments,
specifiec in #1, to be strung together in a first
Wow Ron! That is a lot of answer for me!
I will have to split mine in two installments
if you don't mind.
Ron McFarland wrote:
Thank you list for the welcome. I look forward to many congenial
debates!
I am sorry but you seem to contradict yourself below!
You state, quite
On 3 Nov 2003 at 10:18, Joao Leao wrote:
Wow Ron! That is a lot of answer for me!
I will have to split mine in two installments
if you don't mind.
My apology for the length of the answer. The answer was for the most
part a restatement of something I wrote and was aired on radio over a
decade
Not dualism per se - I'm sure Bruno would argue that he doesn't need
the hypothesis of a concrete universe with physial bodies in it.
However, I think you are correct in suggesting it does depend on an
independence of substrate, which is what Bruno means by COMP -
survivability of first person
Stephen Paul King, [EMAIL PROTECTED], writes:
My problem is that COMP requires the existence of an infinite
computational system that is immune from the laws of thermodynamics. That
makes it HIGHLY suspect in my book.
First, I'm not sure that Bruno's COMP hypothesis (which is basically
Dear Hal,
Interleaving.
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: Quantum accident survivor
Stephen Paul King, [EMAIL PROTECTED], writes:
My problem is that COMP requires the existence
Dear David,
This is a very
good post! I would like to point you to a proposal that Vaughan Pratt discusses
in several of his papers found here:
http://chu.stanford.edu/guide.html
http://chu.stanford.edu/guide.html#ratmech
The basic idea goes like this:
A causes B if and only if the
This topic has been discussed on this list a number of times, under
the heading White Rabbit paradox.
My personally preferred solution to this problem is described in my
paper Why Occam's Razor. Alternative approaches exist - for example
that of Schmidhuber's second paper (it's referenced in
9 matches
Mail list logo
