On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 03:44:46PM -0700, Nick Prince wrote:
[NP]
Maybe you are thinking of Tegmark level 1 or level 2 type multiverses
here, in which case I agree. What I was doing in my analysis was
thinking about QM type 3 multiverses only. Let's pretend that these
are the only
Nick Prince-2 wrote:
This is similar to my speculations in an earlier topic post
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_thread/thread/4514b50b8eb469c3/c49c3aa24c265a4b?lnk=gstq=homomorphic#c49c3aa24c265a4b
where I suggest that very old or dying brains might
deterorate in
2011/10/30 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Nick Prince-2 wrote:
This is similar to my speculations in an earlier topic post
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_thread/thread/4514b50b8eb469c3/c49c3aa24c265a4b?lnk=gstq=homomorphic#c49c3aa24c265a4b
where I
[RS]
The question is - when did the cat become aware of which way the
electron was spinning as it left the Stern-Gerlach apparatus? I would
say it was when it discovered the vial didn't smash, and it was still alive.
The other question, from the DD perspective, is when did the sphere of
On 29 Oct 2011, at 20:07, Nick Prince wrote:
On Oct 29, 6:44 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 30, 2011, at 3:17 AM, Nick Prince
nickmag.pri...@googlemail.com wrote:
Maybe you are thinking of Tegmark level 1 or level 2 type
multiverses
here, in which case I
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 05:10:34AM -0700, Nick Prince wrote:
Well suppose the device triggers the flask smashing part of the
detector apparatus depending on whether the electron is moving up and
spinning up or vice versa as in my analysis. Also say it does this on
recieiving a click from one
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2011/10/30 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Nick Prince-2 wrote:
This is similar to my speculations in an earlier topic post
2011/10/30 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2011/10/30 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Nick Prince-2 wrote:
This is similar to my speculations in an earlier topic post
On Oct 31, 2011, at 8:15 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
OK, I can see that this a possible perspective on that. Indeed most of the
time immortality is used to refer to personal immortality (especially in the
west). I agree with materialists there is no good reason to
On Oct 30, 8:56 pm, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
My point about the unitary evolution was that the clicking of the
Geiger counter is not a unitary process - and until you hear it, you remain in
superposition.
- Show quoted text -
I thought that in the everett
On 10/30/2011 5:09 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
A common response to the idea of QTI is, Why should I care if I die and someone
else in another world who thinks he is me survives? But this objection shows a
lack of understanding of consciousness works if there are multiple
instantiations.
On 10/30/2011 5:13 PM, Nick Prince wrote:
On Oct 30, 8:56 pm, Russell Standishli...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
My point about the unitary evolution was that the clicking of the
Geiger counter is not a unitary process - and until you hear it, you remain in
superposition.
- Show quoted text -
I
12 matches
Mail list logo
