On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
> 2011/11/1 benjayk
>
>>
>>
>> Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
>> >
>> > 2011/10/30 benjayk
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > 2011/10/30 benjayk
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nick Prince-2 wrote:
>> >> >> >
On 11/1/2011 3:40 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
What do you mean by "consciousness" ? I don't care about "eternal" not me... it's the
*same* thing as death. When talking about dying, what's important is the person who die,
if something is left who doesn't know that it was that person... what does i
On 11/1/2011 2:07 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 01:07:31PM -0700, Nick Prince wrote:
This is where I am coming from:
I accept decoherence as the mechanism for suppressing interference
between universes and that this happens very quickly (no time for us
to notice). So assu
On 11/1/2011 1:07 PM, Nick Prince wrote:
[BM]
I don't think I understand it any better than you do. But ISTM we need a
quantum theory
of consciousness in order to write eqns like (3) above. In the standard theory
it implies
that there is some experience of both system states at the same time.
2011/11/1 benjayk
>
>
> Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
> >
> > 2011/10/30 benjayk
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
> >> >
> >> > 2011/10/30 benjayk
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Nick Prince-2 wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This is similar to my speculations in an earlier topic post
> Hi Nick,
>
> OK, Cul de sac's are terminations of a first person point of view.
> Unless we believe in disembodied minds then there is some kind of
> physical system with some kind of wave function that is associated with
> the 'body' of the observer. Here we are considering cats but that d
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 01:07:31PM -0700, Nick Prince wrote:
> This is where I am coming from:
>
> I accept decoherence as the mechanism for suppressing interference
> between universes and that this happens very quickly (no time for us
> to notice). So assuming the everett interpretation, there
[BM]
> I don't think I understand it any better than you do. But ISTM we need a
> quantum theory
> of consciousness in order to write eqns like (3) above. In the standard
> theory it implies
> that there is some experience of both system states at the same time. A
> change of basis
> changes
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
>
> 2011/10/30 benjayk
>
>>
>>
>> Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
>> >
>> > 2011/10/30 benjayk
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Nick Prince-2 wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > This is similar to my speculations in an earlier topic post
>> >> >
>> >>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/ever
On 31 Oct 2011, at 23:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/31/2011 11:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Why? Everett shows convincingly that, being a memory machine, when
we measure a superposition state, we just entangle ourself with the
superposition state, but this differentiate the consciousness/
memor
10 matches
Mail list logo
