Hi Hal,
You say my theory is a subset of yours. I don't understand. I have no
theory, just a deductive argument that IF we are (digital) machine then
the physical world is in our head. Then I show how a Universal Turing
Machine can discover it in its own head. This makes comp, or
variants,
Thanks, Bruno, lots of remarkable notions in your remarks (I mean: I can
write remarks to them 0 sorry for the pun). Let me interject in Italics
below.
John
On 2/5/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi John,
Le 03-févr.-07, à 17:20, John Mikes a écrit :
Stathis, Bruno,
This
Hi Bruno:
As to my grasp of the UDA I think I understood it at one time well
enough for my purpose but that will become clearer as I progress
through my model. There are not too many more steps.
Examining the complete list of possible properties of objects we
should find Empty of all
Le 18-févr.-07, à 03:33, Hal Ruhl a écrit :
Hi Bruno:
In response I will start with some assumptions central to my approach.
The first has to do with the process of making a list.
The assumption is:
Making a list of items [which could be some of
the elements of a set for example] is
Hi Bruno:
At 05:43 AM 2/19/2007, you wrote:
Le 18-févr.-07, à 03:33, Hal Ruhl a écrit :
Hi Bruno:
In response I will start with some assumptions central to my approach.
The first has to do with the process of making a list.
The assumption is:
Making a list of items [which
Hi Bruno:
In response I will start with some assumptions central to my approach.
The first has to do with the process of making a list.
The assumption is:
Making a list of items [which could be some of
the elements of a set for example] is always a
process of making a one to one mapping of
: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Hi Bruno:
I was using some of the main components of my
model to indicate that it allows white rabbits of
all degree. Any succession of states is
allowed. If the presence of SAS in certain
successions requires a certain family of white
rabbit distributions
Hi Hal,
Le 12-févr.-07, à 03:37, Hal Ruhl a écrit :
Hi Bruno:
I was using some of the main components of my
model to indicate that it allows white rabbits of
all degree. Any succession of states is
allowed. If the presence of SAS in certain
successions requires a certain family of
Hi Bruno:
I was using some of the main components of my
model to indicate that it allows white rabbits of
all degree. Any succession of states is
allowed. If the presence of SAS in certain
successions requires a certain family of white
rabbit distributions then these distributions are
Le 06-févr.-07, à 03:06, Russell Standish a écrit :
The informatic destructive effects are due to conflicting
information reducing the total amount of information.
Perhaps you could expand?
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Le 07-févr.-07, à 02:45, Hal Ruhl a écrit :
Given an uncountably infinite number of objects generated from a
countably infinite list of properties and an uncountably infinite
number of UD's in the metaphor I can not see an issue with this re my
model. As I said above Our World can be
are in a pretty liquid exchange-state (liquid OM).
Otherwise the idea is excellent, with multiple choice.
John
- Original Message -
From: Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Hi John
are in a pretty liquid exchange-state (liquid OM).
Otherwise the idea is excellent, with multiple choice.
John
- Original Message -
From: Hal Ruhl
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Hi John:
Long ago
).
Otherwise the idea is excellent, with multiple choice.
John
- Original Message -
From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Hal Ruhl
To: mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Hi John:
Long ago
Le 06-févr.-07, à 05:25, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Hal Ruhl writes:
Hi Bruno:
I do not think I fully understand what you are saying.
Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its
evolving universes - meaning I take it that all
successive states are fully logical
and Many-Worlds
Hi Bruno:
I do not think I fully understand what you are saying.
Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its
evolving universes - meaning I take it that all
successive states are fully logical consequences of their prior state.
I would see this as a selection of one
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 12:23:19PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It *could* be the contrary. In quantum mechanics a case can be given
that it *is* the contrary. It is by taking the full set of (relative
histories) that the quantum phase randomization can eliminate the
quantum aberrant
Hi Bruno:
At 06:23 AM 2/6/2007, you wrote:
Le 06-févr.-07, à 05:25, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Hal Ruhl writes:
Hi Bruno:
I do not think I fully understand what you are saying.
Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its
evolving universes - meaning I take it that all
- Original Message -
From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Hal Ruhl
To: mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Hi Bruno:
I do not think I fully understand what you are saying.
Suppose your
Just to clarify - in the metaphor a UD trace that assigns a Hyper
Existence of say 0.2 does so to all states it lands on because the
UD is that type of UD.
Hal Ruhl
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Hi John,
Le 03-févr.-07, à 17:20, John Mikes a écrit :
Stathis, Bruno,
This summary sounds fine if I accept to 'let words go'. Is there a
way to
'understand' (=use with comprehension) the 'words' used here without
the
'technical' acceptance of the theoretical platform?
I am not
On Feb 2, 10:03 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a bit ambiguous. The UD dovetails on all computations. Let us
write (comp i k j) for k-th step of computation i on input j.
One computation can then be identified (in a first approximation at
least) with a sequence like:
Hi jason,
Le 05-févr.-07, à 17:05, Jason a écrit :
On Feb 2, 10:03 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a bit ambiguous. The UD dovetails on all computations. Let us
write (comp i k j) for k-th step of computation i on input j.
One computation can then be identified (in a
Le 05-févr.-07, à 00:46, Hal Ruhl a écrit :
As far as I can tell from this, my model may include Bruno's model as
a subset.
This means that even if my theory makes disappear all (1-person)
white rabbits, you will still have to justify that your overset does
not reintroduce new one.
So now we have to find some way sto tackle the problem of finding the
right level of abstraction to pursue ...
Bruno
Le 03-févr.-07, à 10:05, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes:
What is correct, and has been singled out by Stathis, is that comp
eludes the material
Hi Bruno:
I do not think I fully understand what you are saying.
Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its
evolving universes - meaning I take it that all
successive states are fully logical consequences of their prior state.
I would see this as a selection of one possibility from two.
Hal Ruhl writes:
Hi Bruno: I do not think I fully understand what you are saying.
Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its evolving universes - meaning
I take it that all successive states are fully logical consequences of
their prior state.
You mean physical consequences or
model may include Bruno's model as a subset.
Yours
Hal Ruhl
- Original Message -
From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Hal Ruhl
To: mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 11:02 PM
Subject: RE: ASSA and Many-Worlds
One thing that I do
Bruno Marchal writes: What is correct, and has been singled out by Stathis, is
that comp eludes the material implementation problem, given that we take
all abstract possible relationship between those objects, and they are all
well defined as purely number theoretical relations. Note that
Stathis, Bruno,
This summary sounds fine if I accept to 'let words go'. Is there a way to
'understand' (=use with comprehension) the 'words' used here without the
'technical' acceptance of the theoretical platform?
There are sacrosanct 'words' used without explaining them (over and over
again?,
Le 01-févr.-07, à 18:46, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 29-janv.-07, à 18:19, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 28-janv.-07, à 20:21, Brent Meeker a écrit :
OK, but that means observer moments are not fundamental and the
illusion of their continuity may
On Feb 1, 11:46 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 29-janv.-07, à 18:19, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 28-janv.-07, à 20:21, Brent Meeker a écrit :
OK, but that means observer moments are not fundamental and the
illusion of their
Brent Meeker writes:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 29-janv.-07, à 18:19, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 28-janv.-07, à 20:21, Brent Meeker a écrit :
OK, but that means observer moments are not fundamental and the
illusion of their continuity may be provided by
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
Le 28-janv.-07, à 20:21, Brent Meeker a écrit :
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
Le 29-janv.-07, à 00:11, Jason Resch a écrit :
Thanks, that was an interesting read. I find it surprising how many
people find MWI so disturbing, perhaps it is the pessimists always
assuming the worst is happening. Instead of focusing on the good or
bad, I look at the variety it
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
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
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
some evidence for MW from quantum
mechanics, but were it not for this, we could easily class MW along with
pink elephants as something very unlikely which cannot be rescued by the
ASSA.
If many-worlds is true, consider for a second how many
histories lines (and copies of you) must have been
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
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
not necessarily mean that thing is
likely or even possible. As it happens there is perhaps some evidence
for MW from quantum mechanics, but were it not for this, we could
easily class MW along with pink elephants as something very unlikely
which cannot be rescued by the ASSA.
If many-worlds is true
On 1/28/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think this is the way to look at it. It's true that QM predicts
an uncountably infinite number of branchings, even for an universe
containing only a single unstable particle. But these branchings don't
produce different copies of
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 03:36:24PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
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
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 04:42:48AM -, Jason wrote:
I agree that regardless of the creation or destruction of other
copies, there is no reason for there ever to be any effect on first
person experience, that means no funny feelings, no loss of
consciousness, etc.
RSSA Proponents:
Brent Meeker writes:
Assuming that consciousness supervenes on the physics, this follows
just from the continuity of the physics. But it doesn't follow that
there is some experience corresponding to 1msec of brain processing - it
might be that seeing the flash spans some
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes:
Assuming that consciousness supervenes on the physics, this follows
just from the continuity of the physics. But it doesn't follow that
there is some experience corresponding to 1msec of brain processing
- it
might be that
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes (quoting Jason Resch):
If many-worlds is true, consider for a second how many histories
lines (and copies of you) must have been created by now. The
universe had been branching into untold numbers of copies, untold
numbers of
One thing that I do not agree with is what seems to me to be a common
holding regarding observer moments [by this I mean discrete states of
universes [which are a sub set of possible objects]] is that they
are each so far assumed to have a set of properties that are to some
extent the same
Brent Meeker writes:
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 that
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes:
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
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 - I think not),
but what about 300msec, or 100msec. There's
On Jan 25, 3:50 am, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 03:54:32PM -0500, John M wrote:
PS I still would appreciate to be directed to a short text explaining the
essence of ASSA (RSSA?). JIt is in my book. Here is the relevant excerpt:
\section[ASSA vs
Brent Meeker writes: Perhaps even in a minimally conscious state your
experiences are specific enough to distinguish them from those of everyone
else in a superficially similar state. But what if, through amazing
coincidence, you had a 5 second period of consciousness which exactly
William Vandenberghe writes: On Jan 25, 3:50 am, Russell Standish [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 03:54:32PM -0500, John M wrote:
PS I still would appreciate to be directed to a short text explaining
the essence of ASSA (RSSA?). JIt is in my book. Here is the relevant
On Jan 27, 12:24 pm, Stathis Papaioannou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William Vandenberghe writes: On Jan 25, 3:50 am, Russell Standish [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 03:54:32PM -0500, John M
wrote: PS I still would appreciate to be directed to a short text
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
Thanks, Russell.
I believe my slip is showing that I did not follow the Mallah related
posts.
If someone concentrates on just certain topics, may miss something.
You are very kind
John
On 1/24/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 03:54:32PM -0500, John M
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes:
Perhaps even in a minimally conscious state your experiences are
specific enough to distinguish them from those of everyone else in a
superficially similar state. But what if, through amazing coincidence,
you had a 5 second period
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 will last the same amount of time, however
many
Subject: RE: ASSA and Many-Worlds
John,
I guess my brain is generating my consciousness, but I regard this as a
contingent fact. My conciousness is that which I experience, and if I found
myself continuing to have similar experiences despite teleportation, brain
transplant, resurrection
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 - I think not), but what about 300msec, or 100msec. There's
It's true that if every entity assumes it is common, more entities overall are
going to be correct. However, what is the relevance of this to first person
experience? The ASSA has been used on this list as an argument against quantum
immortality, on the grounds that since the measure of
.
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
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 04:11:00AM -0800, William wrote:
Your replys are really difficult for me to read, something seems to go
wrong in their formatting.
Me too!
ASSA predicts you are most likely to be thinking that you are 50, and
if any random consciousness thinks he is 50 years of
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
On Jan 27, 9:02 pm, Stathis Papaioannou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's true that if every entity assumes it is common, more entities overall
are going to be correct. However, what is the relevance of this to first
person experience? The ASSA has been used on this list as an argument against
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 - I think not), but what
personal existence with 'the rest of the
world'. I expect that you may provide useful hooks for me in such respect.
John
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 7:08 AM
Subject: RE: ASSA and Many
John Mikes writes:
Stathis:
your concluding sentence is
But my brain just won't let me think this way.
*
Have you been carried away?
Who is your brain to make decisions upon you? (maybe you mean only that the
mechanism of your brain, the main tool YOU use in mental activity, is not
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes:
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:00:11 -0800
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Johnathan Corgan writes:
Stathis Papaioannou
Stathis:
interesting. See my additional question after your reply
John
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 9:03 AM
Subject: RE: ASSA and Many-Worlds
John Mikes writes:
Stathis:
your
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 03:54:32PM -0500, John M wrote:
PS I still would appreciate to be directed to a short text explaining the
essence of ASSA (RSSA?). J
It is in my book. Here is the relevant excerpt:
\section[ASSA vs RSSA]{Absolute vs Relative Self Sampl\-ing Assumption}
In the
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
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 9:03
AM
Subject: RE: ASSA and Many-Worlds
John Mikes writes: Stathis: your
concluding sentence is But my brain just won't let me think this
way. * Have you been carried away? Who is your
brain to make decisions upon you? (maybe you mean only
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
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
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
Brent meeker writes:As I understand it, Bruno's theory is that you are
all the consistent continuations of your consciousness. I'm not exactly
sure what constitutes a consistent continuation, but it must be something
other than just sharing memories. At any given time my
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent meeker writes:
As I understand it, Bruno's theory is that you are all the
consistent continuations of your consciousness. I'm not exactly sure
what constitutes a consistent continuation, but it must be something
other than just sharing
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
Jason Resch writes:
Jason Resch writes:
My appologies to those on this list, this is how I should have worded
my conclusion:
Positive spared lives = Take replication
Neutral spared lives = Take coin flip
Negative spared lives = Take coin flip
[SP]
This is an analysis from an
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
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
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 is the
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 should be
constantly
be worrying that
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 is the same in duplication/
coin
Jason wrote:
Here the replication is only the optimal choice for neutral life times.
If a lifetime is very positive, the 999,999 good lives outweigh the
one tortured. If the spared lifetimes were very negative, the 999,999
lifetimes would only add to the negative observer moments created
Jason wrote:
Jason wrote:
Here the replication is only the optimal choice for neutral life times.
If a lifetime is very positive, the 999,999 good lives outweigh the
one tortured. If the spared lifetimes were very negative, the 999,999
lifetimes would only add to the negative observer
Jason Resch writes:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
What about when multiple equally valid OM's exist? I don't agree that they
are all perceived.
If I am to be duplicated and one of the copies tortured, I am worried,
because this is subjectively
equivalent to expecting torture with 1/2
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
What about when multiple equally valid OM's exist? I don't agree that they
are all perceived.
If I am to be duplicated and one of the copies tortured, I am worried,
because this is subjectively
equivalent to expecting torture with 1/2 probability.
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Hi,
Le Vendredi 19 Janvier 2007 12:20, William a écrit :
I have been reading up on this subject a little bit and about the
quantum immortality, I believe it is a common misconception that this
means you will never die; if all future branches involve your death,
Le 19-janv.-07, à 17:44, Brent Meeker a écrit :
William wrote:
I have been reading up on this subject a little bit and about the
quantum immortality, I believe it is a common misconception that this
means you will never die; if all future branches involve your death,
then you will die ...
- Original Message -
From: Jason
To: Everything List
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 12:58 AM
Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
William wrote:
A simple way of picturing this, would be that at the big bang; the
universe is 1 piece of paper, and from then on, every second
William Vandenberghe writes:
I have been reading up on this subject a little bit and about the
quantum immortality, I believe it is a common misconception that this
means you will never die; if all future branches involve your death,
then you will die ... Quantum immortality does not imply
times, and perhaps we would evolve to think this
way in a world where
duplication was commonplace, but our brains aren't wired that way at present.
Stathis Papaioanou
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: ASSA and Many
Jason writes:
William wrote:
A simple way of picturing this, would be that at the big bang; the
universe is 1 piece of paper, and from then on, every second, the
piece(s) of paper is cut in half; giving 1, 2, 4, 8, ... universes. The
total area of paper remains the same and all the
Wiliam writes:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Hi,
Le Vendredi 19 Janvier 2007 12:20, William a écrit :
I have been reading up on this subject a little bit and about the
quantum immortality, I believe it is a common misconception that this
means you will never die; if all future branches
I have been reading up on this subject a little bit and about the
quantum immortality, I believe it is a common misconception that this
means you will never die; if all future branches involve your death,
then you will die ... Quantum immortality does not imply that you can
dodge every bullet
Hi,
Le Vendredi 19 Janvier 2007 12:20, William a écrit :
I have been reading up on this subject a little bit and about the
quantum immortality, I believe it is a common misconception that this
means you will never die; if all future branches involve your death,
then you will die ... Quantum
William wrote:
I have been reading up on this subject a little bit and about the
quantum immortality, I believe it is a common misconception that this
means you will never die; if all future branches involve your death,
then you will die ... Quantum immortality does not imply that you can
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
That is, once you are a conscious entity, you will follow a constrained
branching
path through the multiverse giving the illusion of a single linear history.
Measure is
redefined at every branching point: the subjective probability of your next
moment.
Since
William wrote:
A simple way of picturing this, would be that at the big bang; the
universe is 1 piece of paper, and from then on, every second, the
piece(s) of paper is cut in half; giving 1, 2, 4, 8, ... universes. The
total area of paper remains the same and all the pieces get smaller all
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
