Jason Resch writes:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Jason Resch writes:
Let's say being spared is neutral while being tortured is obviously bad,
even
if you are tortured for only a few minutes. Also, assume the intensity of
the
torture and the quality of life on being spared
Johnathan Corgan writes:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
If some multiverse theory happens to be true then by your way of argument
we
should all be extremely anxious all the time, because every moment terrible
things
are definitely happening to some copy of us. For example, we
as
I do myself,
but just as likely I might decide to be completely reckless with my life, or
even with
everyone else's life. But my brain just won't let me think this way.
Stathis Papaioannou
_
Be one of the first to try Windows Live
as an approximation (instead of a white rabbit world)
is not a solved problem - though there are proposed, possible solutions.
Doesn't the SWE make some events much more likely than others, whether that
involves CI collapse or distribution of histories in the MWI?
Stathis Papaioannou
Bruno marchal writes:
Le 23-janv.-07, à 06:17, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Simplistically, I conceive of computations as mysterious abstract
objects, like
all other mathematical objects. Physical computers are devices which
reflect
these mathematical objects in order to achieve
Brent Meeker writes: Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:52:01 -0800 From: [EMAIL
PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Rép : The
Meaning of Life Stathis Papaioannou wrote:Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 23-janv.-07, à 06:17, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : Searle's
theory
think what I can think
or I can only walk where I can walk are.
Stathis Papaioannou
_
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
Brent Meeker writes:I think Bruno already remarked that it may well be
more probable that a continuation of your consciousness arises in some
other branch of the multiverse by chance, rather than as a state of
your erstwhile body. This would seem particularly more probable as your
PapaioannouFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: ASSA and Many-WorldsDate: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:54:32 -0500
Stathis:
interesting. See my additional question after your
reply
John
- Original Message -
From:
Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Moreover, even if we constrain the definition of computer to include only the
operations of factory-made devices plugged in and appropriately programmed, the
fact that a digital computation at any instant does not access all of memory
and data allows for the computation to be distributed over
to
Stathis Papaioannou. But in the meantime I think you are still you - and not
all those other people who shared those vague thoughts in the recovery room.
And it can't be because your memories are instantly accessible; that's a mere
potentiality not a state. If we start to reify potentialities
implemented on two computers running in perfect lockstep.Stathis
Papaioannou Which is to say there is no you, or at least you are not your
consciousness. This raises the question again of what is the minimum
duration of a conscious state? You mention 5sec as being a long time
such names
as JacquesMallah,\index{Mallah, Jacques}Saibal Mitra,\index{Mitra,
Saibal} Hal Finney\index{Finney, Hal} and the ``relative'' camp which includes
Bruno Marchal,\index{Marchal, Bruno} StathisPapaioannou, and myself.
\index{Papaioannou, Stathis}\index{Standish, Russell
William Vandenberghe writes:[SP]Suppose for simplicity that there is only one
world: you live your life
from birth to death and that's it. God reveals to you that you will
live to be 100, but on your 50th birthday he will create a zillion
copies of you which will all run in parallel for one
, and we can easily change the
experiment to make this interval as short as we want. Does this mean that
an observer moment can actually be instantaneous?Stathis
Papaioannou This example implicitly assumes a kind of dualism or cartesian
theatre in which the brain does some processing
of the number of copies. Stathis PapaioannouJason
Resch writes:On 1/27/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to the RSSA, *nothing* happens from your POV when you turn 50. Given
that you are already alive, you are going to experience the moments of your
life in order and each one
.
But, alas, so are the lists
Have a good weekend
John
- Original Message -
From:
Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:55
PM
Subject: RE: ASSA and Many-Worlds
John, I guess my brain is generating my
Russell Standish writes: There is good reason to suppose that the absolute
measure of an observer moment is inversely proportional to the exponential of
the OM's complexity (this is discussed elsewhere in my book). In such a case,
newborn OM's have vastly greater likelihood of being
Brent Meeker writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent Meeker writes:
This raises the question again of what is the minimum duration of a
conscious state? You mention 5sec as being a long time for a
coincidental match (would there still be two consciousnesses for that
5sec
one of
them.Stathis Papaioannou OK, but that means observer moments
are not fundamental and the illusion of their continuity may be
provided by the continuity of their underpinning. But I don't see how a
strictly stepwise discrete process as contemplated in the UD can provide
impression of continuity.
Stathis Papaioannou
_
Live Search: New search found
http://get.live.com/search/overview
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Brent Meeker writes: Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 21:57:15 -0800 From: [EMAIL
PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: ASSA and
Many-Worlds Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent Meeker writes:
OK, but that means observer moments are not fundamental and the
illusion
and sufficient for the mental
state, this not the same as saying the two are identical. One point of
difference between them is that the subjective order of the mental states may
be unrelated to the actual order of the physical states underpinning them.
Stathis Papaioannou
. Stathis Papaioannou
_
Live Search: Better results, fast
http://get.live.com/search/overview
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything
Mark,As Bertrand Russell comented on Descartes' cogito, it's even going a bit
far to deduce I think, therefore I am; all you can say with certainty is I
think, therefore there is a thought. There is a difference in kind between
certainty and a reasonable model, as there is a difference in kind
source of ethics in the form of a deity. Even if this
conclusion made me very unhappy, that might be reason to try self-deception,
but it has no bearing on the truth. Stathis Papaioannou Brent and
Stathis exemplify two possible answers to meaning. Brent reduces meaning to
something based
or something similar, don't you? I don't see
anything logically inconsistent about a talking white rabbit or even the atoms
of my keyboard reassembling themselves into a fire-breathing dragon.
Stathis Papaioannou
I would see this as a selection of one possibility from two. Lets us say
that you
'second belief bases' in our multiple schizophrenia of
intelligence.
Some have 'Platonia', some 'primitive matter view' - it is your profession.
Do you really think you can penetrate one by arguments from another?
John M
On 2/5/07, Stathis Papaioannou
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Tom Caylor
?)
idem, non est idem.
John M
- Original Message -
From:
Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:38
AM
Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life
John,You shouldn't have one criterion for your own
beliefs and a different
much of our values would be determined
and how much free is not clear. Stathis Papaioannou
_
Live Search: New search found
http://get.live.com/search/overview
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message
worse than wrong.
Stathis PapaioannouDate: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:03:05 -0500From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: The Meaning of LifeStathis,
maybe I shoot too high, but I was expecting something better from you, at least
referring to what I said.
JohnOn 2/6/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL
in the form of a deity. Even if this
conclusion made me very unhappy, that might be reason to try self-deception,
but it has no bearing on the truth. Stathis Papaioannou Brent and
Stathis exemplify two possible answers to meaning. Brent reduces meaning to
something based on mere existence
Tom Caylor writes: Brent Meeker It does not matter now that in a
million years nothing we do now will matter. --- Thomas Nagel
We might like to believe Nagel, but it isn't true. Tom That is, it
isn't true that in a million years nothing we do now will matter.Why do you
say
-
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:54 PM
Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life
John,Some people, including the mentally ill, do have multiple inconsistent
belief systems, but to me that makes it clear that at least one of their
beliefs must
Good of you to offer to do this, Jason! A wiki would be both fair and
efficient.Stathis From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Creating an Everything List wiki
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 06:52:35 + On Feb 7, 8:26 pm, Hal Ruhl [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote: Hi John:
reason and say what they please.
The sorry thing is, when a crowd takes it too seriously and kill, blow up, beat
or burn live human beings in that 'belief'. Same, if for money.
John M
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday
considerations. If some far future nonhuman civilization dug up the Nazis
their children might very well want the equivalent of Adolf Hitler dolls for
Christmas, even if their ethical standards turn out to be similar to our
own. In the long run, fascination trumps horror.
Stathis Papaioannou
built a model society and set its citizens instincts, goals,
laws-from-heaven (but really from you) and so on, would that suffice to
provide meaning?
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
such
a being would or wouldn't come up with the same ideas as humans have,
assuming similar evolutionary provenance?
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post
http://www.capitolannex.com/IMAGES2/CHISUMMEMO.pdf
What can you say?
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list
any device that can create a representation of the world, itself and
the relationship between the world and itself be conscious? If you believe
that it would, then you are thereby very close to computationalism, the
thing you seem to be questioning.
Stathis Papaioannou
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2/18/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 16, 8:18 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you built a model society and set its citizens instincts, goals,
laws-from-heaven
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These are positivist questions. This is your basic error in this
whole post (and previous ones). These questions
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 19, 7:00 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
, John, although that puts
you in good company :)
On 2/18/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/18/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My main problem with Comp is that it needs several unprovable
assumptions to be accepted. For example the Yes Doctor hypothesis
the right sort of brains. I am not suggesting
that this is the case and there are reasons to think it is unlikely to
be the case, but it is not ruled out by any empirical observation.
Stathis Papaioannou
The problem is that there doesn't seem to be any conceivable observation
that could rule
On 2/21/07, Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2/20/07, Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would bet on functionalism as the correct theory of mind for
various
reasons, but I don't see that there is anything illogical the
possibility
On 2/21/07, Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
It is a complicated issue. Patients with psychotic illnesses can
sometimes
reflect on a past episode and see that they were unwell then even though
they insisted they were not at the time. They then might say
that you're hallucinating. Long term follow-up of
these patients show that some of them do eventually develop real
psychosis, and others end up doing as poorly in terms of relationships,
employment, suicide etc. as patients with schizophrenia.
Stathis Papaioannou
On 2/22/07, Jesse Mazer [EMAIL
On 2/22/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
A patient says that his leg is paralysed, behaves as if his leg is
paralysed, but the clinical signs and investigations are not consistent
with a paralysed leg. The diagnosis of hysterical paralysis is made
be understood unless the observer has it
himself, no matter how good the collected empirical data, is what is meant
by first person experience.
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything
On 2/23/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 20, 3:47 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ultimate meaning is analogous to axioms or arithmetic truth (e.g. 42
is not prime). In fact the famous quote of Kronecker
the world can be simulated and whether the world is being simulated
are two different questions. Can you point to any aspect of the world which
can't be simulated no matter how powerful the computer?
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message
On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 23, 8:51 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that positivists don't like metaphysics, and they actually
don't believe in it either. The problem
you wanted, but you didn't know that he had done
this and believed firmly that you were still guided by divine destiny, how
would your behaviour be different?
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
technology (penicillin works better than prayer),
but where does this leave the example you raised recently, the
interpretation of quantum mechanics? I understand that some journals will
not publish papers on this subject on positivist grounds, i.e. that it is
metaphysics rather than science.
Stathis
on a big computer by starting with virtual
raw material, setting starting parameters and laws of physics, then clicking
run. Is there any way from the inside of determining whether we are more
likely living in one than the other?
Stathis Papaioannou
On 2/26/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 26-févr.-07, à 11:57, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
On 2/26/07, John M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Brent Meeker
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: Evidence
in my gut assuming that the universe, the
solar sysstem, humans were made for their benefit.
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email
On 2/27/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 24, 6:10 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The universe is not under any obligation to reveal itself to us. All
we
can
do is stumble around blindly gathering
accept it, even if it can be shown that I genuinely believe
what I am claiming.
Stathis Papaioannou
On 2/27/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 25, 2:06 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Believing in Divine Destiny is one
[EMAIL PROTECTED], I rarely pass up an opportunity for religious debate,
but I am honestly overwhelmed by your recent posts. I hope you have not done
all this work just to be relegated to the list archive. How did you find us,
anyway?
Stathis Papaioannou
that they are following the standard rules of a game,
such as science, they can't complain if they are judged according to those
rules.
John Mikes
On 2/26/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But how do you know that the Qu'ran is actually the word of God? People
claim all sorts of things
that God breaks the circularity, why include this extra
layer
of complication instead of stopping at the universe?
Stathis Papaioannou
Because the universe doesn't break the circularity (and a plenitude of
universes doesn't either for that matter).
Actually, the plenitude does break
. The question is, how can I tell whether I am in the real
world or in the godless (or deistic, or pantheistic) plenitude?
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group
spontaneously gathering in the proverbial corner.
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 3/6/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 2, 4:54 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the
meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking
of decimal places?
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email
factors are generated, but it doesn't
matter how this is achieved. If you suddenly die today and are miraculously
recreated inside the event horizon of a black hole, no-one will ever be able
to find you again but you will be able to find yourself.
Stathis Papaioannou
by experiment,
running the UD and counting the relative number of structures?
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list
that aren't you. This is the defining feature of a conscious
entity. (This is repeating Russell's answer, but it's perhaps the single
most important idea of this list: everything + anthropic principle =
observed reality).
Stathis Papaioannou
the reason people like chocolate can be
explained in terms of chemistry, physiology, evolutionary biology etc., only
the chocolate fairy can give ultimate meaning to the chocolate eating
experience.
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message
On 3/7/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I agree with the Russell quote as it stands. Unendingness is not what
gives meaning. The source of meaning is not living forever in time
(contrary
(i.e. not just arising as a
consequence of the many worlds), as far as creating, destroying or changing
the Plenitude goes.
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group
! =-O
You wouldn't necessarily be squashed if you were inside the event horizon of
a black hole provided that it was massive enough. Being inside the event
horizon is not the same as being inside the singularity.
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You
*to* the singularity,
would it not?
Yes, but it could take a very long time to get there in a massive enough
black hole.
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post
asking about paleopsychology, a field I don't know anything
about, if anyone does. However, I was talking about what it means to survive
rather than the process whereby survival might be ensured.
Stathis Papaioannou
- Original Message -
*From:* Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED
On 3/9/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
You could replace love with chocolate and God with the
chocolate
fairy. You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can
be
explained in terms of chemistry, physiology, evolutionary biology
etc
bad. This strong sense that there is
something to moral behaviour besides evolutionary expediency is what I
called a second order feeling, and its utility is that it makes it difficult
for us to shrug off morality and do whatever we want.
Stathis Papaioannou
On 3/10/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 7, 1:52 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/7/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to
any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory
into a - well - singularity-content.
Whoever KNOWS more about singularities, BHs, Dark Matter, should
speak up - please: NO assumptions ('it got to be's) or deductions of such!
We don't know. We only guess on the basis of our best evidence and theories.
Stathis Papaioannou
is proportional to M. This refers
to your time frame: for the devil who threw you in, it would appear that you
never reach the event horizon.
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
a theist would limit God and
insist that he wouldn't have done it this way.
Stathis Papaioannou
On 3/11/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 10, 2:34 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/10/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 7, 1:52 am, Stathis
in the reduction.
Stathis Papaioannou
On 3/12/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 11-mars-07, à 17:56, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Reductionism means breaking something up into simpler parts to explain
it. What's wrong with that?
Because, assuming comp, neither matter nor mind
screen, it
will be made up of a discrete number of pixels despite what Pythagoras'
theorem calculates. Irrational in the real world may just be an illusion.
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
distance out there!
How can you be sure? Maybe space is discrete.
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list
On 3/14/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou skrev:
On 3/13/07, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*Not necessarily. If you draw a diagonal on a square on a computer
screen, it will be made up of a discrete number of pixels despite what
Pythagoras
On 3/15/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou skrev:
On 3/14/07, *Torgny Tholerus* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou skrev:
How can you be sure? Maybe space is discrete.
Yes, space
On 3/15/07, David Nyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 14, 10:18 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps using the term existence for mathematical objects is
misleading.
It doesn't mean they exist as separate objects in the real world, just
that
they exist as concepts
description. There is no
special knottiness or letterness ingredient that needs to be added to ensure
that they are knots or letters.
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group
On 3/16/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I think it's more like asking why are we aware of 17 and other small
numbers but no integers greater that say 10^10^20 - i.e. almost all
of them. A theory that just says all integers exist doesn't
as there are future
versions of him extant anywhere at all. Thus, the first person
perspective, necessarily from within the plenitude, makes a global
impossibility a local certainty.
Stathis Papaioannou
If only one part of the possible actually exists, that isn't like being the
one person in a million
On 3/17/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
If only one part of the possible actually exists, that isn't like being
the one person in a million who has to win the lottery, it is more like
waking up to find that money has miraculously appeared in your
the computer? It seems to me
they should have the same ontological status as the abstract computer, but
it is then impossible to assign them a measure which makes the weirder ones
less likely, as has been done with computation.
Stathis Papaioannou
OMs including ones with bizarre events happening, you should expect to
experience the ones with higher measure. To deny this would be to deny the
validity of probability theory.
I'm not sure what you mean by the order of your current observer moment.
Stathis Papaioannou
Stathis Papaioannou
, whether remembered moments occurred in the
remembered order or even occurred at all in the real world.
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group
computations have a privileged ontological status in the everything?
Stathis Papaioannou
On 3/19/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 03:25:51PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
One response to this idea is that the non-computational worlds are
overrun
On 3/19/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/19/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Each observer moment lives only transiently and is not in
telepathic
communication with any other OMs, whether
sameness from moment to moment constitutes a sense of
memory and continuity of identity, since an OM that deviated substantially
from this would either not be considered as a successor OM or immediately
alert you that something strange had happened.
Stathis Papaioannou
On 3/19/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:03:04PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I don't mean the white rabbits from the Turing machine, I mean the ones
outside it. If we accept that an abstract machine can just exist,
without
benefit
801 - 900 of 2644 matches
Mail list logo
