Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
*Stathis wrote:* *You may as well claim that an infinite single universe should not existbecause it boggles the human mind. * ** *Stathis Papaioannou* *---* We are talking *think of* rather than* 'exist'* - unless you consider it as 'existing in someones boggled mind as an idea (boggled thought, nightmare). John M On 5/25/10, Michael Gough innovative.engin...@gmail.com wrote: The branching is occurring at every moment, so if even one set of said parents got it on, there would be umpteen trillons(TM) of copies of said individual. It has nothing to do really with the parents at all. Once you exist, there's umpteen trillions of copies that stem from the state of the individual at each moment in time. On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:59 AM, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: - Original Message - *From:* Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:35 PM *Subject:* Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out On 20/05/2010, at 4:12 PM, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: I may have this all wrong, but it seems to me that for there to be umpteen trillion copies of a person there had to be umpteen trillion (UT) copies of his parents. And only a relatively small sub-group of those met and cohabited at the exact moment of his/her conception. But the same must have been true for their parents and their parents' parents and so forth back to the primoridal slime. And this staggering foliation of universes only covers one specific zygote of two specific gametes. What of all the other UT^UT combinations leading to the creation of other individuals just on this family tree? And what of all the other combinations and histories of every human, animal, insect and bacterium on this planet? Does it really make sense to assume numbers of universes so far beyond our ability to conceive of?marty a. You may as well claim that an infinite single universe should not exist because it boggles the human mind. Stathis Papaioannou I don't know, Stathis. Somehow it seems easier for me to conceive of ONE infinite universe than to conceive of umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen...universes. My mind is obviously more limited than yours. m.a. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
When one's mind boggles on hearing a term, like infinite that means you have no clear understanding of it and if you use the term you literally don't know what you're talking about. I think the infinity of the integers is clear enough, and the infinity of the reals, and even the infinity of square integrable functions (a Hilbert space). But when someone talks about infinitely many infinite universes coming into being at an infinite number of moments within a finite duration - as is implied by in some relative state interpretations of QM - then I wonder if they know what they're talking about. Brent On 5/27/2010 12:43 PM, John Mikes wrote: /*Stathis wrote:*/ /*You may as well claim that an infinite single universe _should not exist_ because it boggles the human mind.*/ ** /*Stathis Papaioannou*/ */---/* We are talking *think of* rather than* 'exist'* - unless you consider it as 'existing in someones boggled mind as an idea (boggled thought, nightmare). John M On 5/25/10, *Michael Gough* innovative.engin...@gmail.com mailto:innovative.engin...@gmail.com wrote: The branching is occurring at every moment, so if even one set of said parents got it on, there would be umpteen trillons(TM) of copies of said individual. It has nothing to do really with the parents at all. Once you exist, there's umpteen trillions of copies that stem from the state of the individual at each moment in time. On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:59 AM, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net mailto:marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: - Original Message - *From:* Stathis Papaioannou mailto:stath...@gmail.com *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:35 PM *Subject:* Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out On 20/05/2010, at 4:12 PM, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net mailto:marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: I may have this all wrong, but it seems to me that for there to be umpteen trillion copies of a person there had to be umpteen trillion (UT) copies of his parents. And only a relatively small sub-group of those met and cohabited at the exact moment of his/her conception. But the same must have been true for their parents and their parents' parents and so forth back to the primoridal slime. And this staggering foliation of universes only covers one specific zygote of two specific gametes. What of all the other UT^UT combinations leading to the creation of other individuals just on this family tree? And what of all the other combinations and histories of every human, animal, insect and bacterium on this planet? Does it really make sense to assume numbers of universes so far beyond our ability to conceive of?marty a. You may as well claim that an infinite single universe should not exist because it boggles the human mind. Stathis Papaioannou I don't know, Stathis. Somehow it seems easier for me to conceive of ONE infinite universe than to conceive of umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen...universes. My mind is obviously more limited than yours. m.a. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
I am afraid you start from the 2nd step: first you accept whatever 'we' (humans) think as an evidence in the system we can absorb and evaluate (explain) and then - *in the framework of that *we imagine our science. Indeed not much more than a belief system of today. Not too different from the so called religion, which accepts hearsay as truth and evidence, the bible as proof and builds on such belief system. The workings of the world are not shrinkable into such 'truth' we use as much as we can. The 'new evidence' - you say - that *overturns* tomorrow today's theory is just a similar belief. Tentative with a bucketful of pretension - called either scientific or religious. Flat Earth...? The whole idea behind my 1st post in this topic was *questioning 'evidence' via our human restrictedness - vs the unlimit(able)ed workings of the world*- by far not coverable by us. We *observe* *what we can and how we can* and *explain *by *what we know*. It was different in B.C. times, in ~1500AD, yesterday and will be different 500/5000 years from now. And: I don't buy the nanosec as small, nature can use it as very big, and vice versa, Brent's timespan can be a 'blinking'. Magnitude-scales are insecure: we like our body-size median. John Mikes On 5/24/10, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 May 2010 23:08, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Stathis, you seemed bored: you jumped into assigning a bit more to my text than it really contained: ...saying that we can know nothing about it at all... what I did not say. I spoke about a 'hypothetical' functioning of the world (read the 'imaginingit) and it refers to how we explain 'it' (i.e. whatever we 'got' - explaining rightly or wrongly). Bruno assumes that we are digitalizable machines - eo ipso numbers are 'in' for him. A religious devotee assumes that we are God's creations - with all pertinent explanations and combinations. I assume we don't know. The 'system' what conventional sciences developed over the past millennia is not so perfect, in spite of all the technology we developed. There are faults (due to imperfections). paradoxes and - mind boggling. We reached such a complicated (complex?) level that nobody dares to start from anew in looking into all the facets believed to be true. Theories are sacrosanct, the network is all encompassing and we still do not know a lot of the basics. We assume them. And build on that. It sounds like you are talking about religion rather than science. Science is always tentative: a theory can be overturned tomorrow by new evidence, and finding such evidence is one of the most impressive things a scientist can do. -- 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-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
The branching is occurring at every moment, so if even one set of said parents got it on, there would be umpteen trillons(TM) of copies of said individual. It has nothing to do really with the parents at all. Once you exist, there's umpteen trillions of copies that stem from the state of the individual at each moment in time. On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:59 AM, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: - Original Message - *From:* Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:35 PM *Subject:* Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out On 20/05/2010, at 4:12 PM, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: I may have this all wrong, but it seems to me that for there to be umpteen trillion copies of a person there had to be umpteen trillion (UT) copies of his parents. And only a relatively small sub-group of those met and cohabited at the exact moment of his/her conception. But the same must have been true for their parents and their parents' parents and so forth back to the primoridal slime. And this staggering foliation of universes only covers one specific zygote of two specific gametes. What of all the other UT^UT combinations leading to the creation of other individuals just on this family tree? And what of all the other combinations and histories of every human, animal, insect and bacterium on this planet? Does it really make sense to assume numbers of universes so far beyond our ability to conceive of?marty a. You may as well claim that an infinite single universe should not exist because it boggles the human mind. Stathis Papaioannou I don't know, Stathis. Somehow it seems easier for me to conceive of ONE infinite universe than to conceive of umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen...universes. My mind is obviously more limited than yours. m.a. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
Thank you for the responses. Brent Meeker-2 wrote: On 5/23/2010 9:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Alex, hi Quentin, On 20 May 2010, at 15:19, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi, 2010/5/20 awak mustata_a...@yahoo.com mailto:mustata_a...@yahoo.com 1. Hello everyone! I'm Alex. I'm a civil engineer with an avid passion for Popular Science books. I'm not a scientist, nor a native English speaker, so please excuse my possible inconsistencies in both Scientific logic or English grammar. Again, sorry if this question has already been posed. 2. I've just finished reading Russel Standish's Theory of Nothing so the following question, concerning Quantum Immortality, has its base in the information found in this book. 3. From what i understand, Functionalism and Computationalism implies that my consciousness will follow all the world-lines where i live at a maximum age - this considering that there might be a limit to Quantum Immortality, even though this is in contradiction with the definition of this concept; for the purpose my question let's just say there might be some worlds where i live until 200 yrs. 4. From Wikipedia : Syncope (pronounced /ˈsɪŋkəpi/) is the medical term for fainting, a sudden, usually temporary, loss of consciousness generally caused by insufficient oxygen in the brain either through cerebral hypoxia or through hypotension, but possibly for other reasons. Typical symptoms progress through dizziness, clamminess of the skin, a dimming of vision or greyout, possibly tinnitus, complete loss of vision, weakness of limbs to physical collapse. These symptoms falling short of complete collapse, or a fall down, may be referred to as a syncoptic episode. So i take this as evidence that consciousness is not continuous. 5. MY QUESTION: Why is this possible, for me to pass out, losing my consciousness because of cerebral hypoxia, hypotension, or because i am hit by someone, considering that Quantum Immortality implies continuous consciousness? More to that, shouldn't we find ourselves in worlds where we don't sleep (where we are semi-conscious just like dolphins are because they sleep only with half of their brains) so we don't lose consciousness? Quantum immortality doesn't implies continuous consciousness... it just implies that there will always be a next moment. So you can passed out but you will eventually wake up. It is an eternally recurring question/objection to many-worlders. I think Quentin is basically right, as far as we agree that QM is correct and decoherence does its work. With DM (Digital mechanism, actually used by QM) the math is awfully complex. All we can say is that the measure one obeys a non boolean sort of quantum logic. IF DM and/or QM is correct the notion of normality for relatively computable histories (the arithmetical world-lines) makes higher your survive a cerebral hypoxia in the normal third person sharable common reality. For irreversible damages, like with alzheimer, or with death, the question of the first person indeterminacy is more complex. By a 'galois connection', you normally augment the possibilities, but there may be jumps, amnesia, and it may depend eventually on what you identify yourself with. But the jumps can be arbitrarily long. So is a jump of 10^10yrs = death? Brent Those 'modern theological' questions are awfully difficult, but computer science can translate them into questions (or set of questions) of arithmetic (in the DM theory, that is assuming we are digitalizable machine). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. That is exactly what i was going to ask. Forget me if i am wrong, but if entangled photons are located at a distance so large, which would be so hard for us to imagine, that we might say that they are distanced at infinity but they were still able to be entangled, by the same token couldn't we say that that non-continuous consciousness or these observers moments between an
Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
On 24 May 2010 01:12, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Stathis, I hate to go into a 'fault-finding' trip, but what gives you the idea that the universe works in any way WE, stupid consequences THINK OF in any fashion? The universe (???) or anything we translate into universes in our limited minds - MAY work in its own unrestricted ways and we - with our minuscule knowledge, even that distorted into our (personally different) minds, - imagine that hypothetical working into whatever we please. Then, pray, why not imagining it in ways we feel comfortable with? End of Sunday sermon The universe is not obliged to be understandable to us or to conform to our idea of what it should be like. But that is not the same as saying that we can know nothing about it at all, or that we can imagine it in any way we like. That would destroy any endeavour. -- 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-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
Stathis, you seemed bored: you jumped into assigning a bit more to my text than it really contained: *...saying that we can know nothing about it at all... * what I did not say. I spoke about a 'hypothetical' functioning of the world (read the* 'imaginingit)* and it refers to how we explain 'it' (i.e. whatever we 'got' - explaining rightly or wrongly). Bruno assumes that we are digitalizable machines - eo ipso numbers are 'in' for him. A religious devotee assumes that we are God's creations - with all pertinent explanations and combinations. I assume we don't know. The 'system' what conventional sciences developed over the past millennia is not so perfect, in spite of all the technology we developed. There are faults (due to imperfections). paradoxes and - mind boggling. We reached such a complicated (complex?) level that nobody dares to start from anew in looking into all the facets believed to be true. Theories are sacrosanct, the network is all encompassing and we still do not know a lot of the basics. We assume them. And build on that. John M On 5/24/10, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 May 2010 01:12, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Stathis, I hate to go into a 'fault-finding' trip, but what gives you the idea that the universe works in any way WE, stupid consequences THINK OF in any fashion? The universe (???) or anything we translate into universes in our limited minds - MAY work in its own unrestricted ways and we - with our minuscule knowledge, even that distorted into our (personally different) minds, - imagine that hypothetical working into whatever we please. Then, pray, why not imagining it in ways we feel comfortable with? End of Sunday sermon The universe is not obliged to be understandable to us or to conform to our idea of what it should be like. But that is not the same as saying that we can know nothing about it at all, or that we can imagine it in any way we like. That would destroy any endeavour. -- 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-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
On 5/24/2010 6:08 AM, John Mikes wrote: Stathis, you seemed bored: you jumped into assigning a bit more to my text than it really contained: _/...saying that we can know nothing about it at all.../ _ what I did not say. I spoke about a 'hypothetical' functioning of the world (read the/ 'imagining*_it)_*/ and it refers to how we explain 'it' (i.e. whatever we 'got' - explaining rightly or wrongly). Bruno assumes that we are digitalizable machines - eo ipso numbers are 'in' for him. A religious devotee assumes that we are God's creations - with all pertinent explanations and combinations. I assume we don't know. The 'system' what conventional sciences developed over the past millennia is not so perfect, in spite of all the technology we developed. There are faults (due to imperfections). paradoxes and - mind boggling. We reached such a complicated (complex?) level that nobody dares to start from anew in looking into all the facets believed to be true. That would be a futile way to proceed. There are too many facts and looking into them requires assuming other facts and theories. So the usual procedure is to hypothesize a new theory and see if it (a) agrees with all the 'known' facts and (b) predicts some new fact. If it disagrees with some 'known' fact then we can look into that fact to see if maybe it isn't as factual as we thought. If it predicts something new that is found to be a fact, this counts very strongly for the new theory since we think it unlikely that such a prediction could pan out by chance. I'd say that's the scheme Bruno is following, it's just difficult to infer some new facts from his theory that can be tested. Brent Theories are sacrosanct, the network is all encompassing and we still do not know a lot of the basics. We assume them. And build on that. John M On 5/24/10, *Stathis Papaioannou* stath...@gmail.com mailto:stath...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 May 2010 01:12, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com mailto:jami...@gmail.com wrote: Stathis, I hate to go into a 'fault-finding' trip, but what gives you the idea that the universe works in any way WE, stupid consequences THINK OF in any fashion? The universe (???) or anything we translate into universes in our limited minds - MAY work in its own unrestricted ways and we - with our minuscule knowledge, even that distorted into our (personally different) minds, - imagine that hypothetical working into whatever we please. Then, pray, why not imagining it in ways we feel comfortable with? End of Sunday sermon The universe is not obliged to be understandable to us or to conform to our idea of what it should be like. But that is not the same as saying that we can know nothing about it at all, or that we can imagine it in any way we like. That would destroy any endeavour. -- 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 mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
On 24 May 2010 23:08, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Stathis, you seemed bored: you jumped into assigning a bit more to my text than it really contained: ...saying that we can know nothing about it at all... what I did not say. I spoke about a 'hypothetical' functioning of the world (read the 'imaginingit) and it refers to how we explain 'it' (i.e. whatever we 'got' - explaining rightly or wrongly). Bruno assumes that we are digitalizable machines - eo ipso numbers are 'in' for him. A religious devotee assumes that we are God's creations - with all pertinent explanations and combinations. I assume we don't know. The 'system' what conventional sciences developed over the past millennia is not so perfect, in spite of all the technology we developed. There are faults (due to imperfections). paradoxes and - mind boggling. We reached such a complicated (complex?) level that nobody dares to start from anew in looking into all the facets believed to be true. Theories are sacrosanct, the network is all encompassing and we still do not know a lot of the basics. We assume them. And build on that. It sounds like you are talking about religion rather than science. Science is always tentative: a theory can be overturned tomorrow by new evidence, and finding such evidence is one of the most impressive things a scientist can do. -- 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-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
On 23 May 2010 05:26, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Stathis: how about a wording version of your remark: you may as well claim that we should not make up an infinite universe story that would boggle the human mind? I am not against the 'exist', because any idea does exist (at least in the mind of the initiator). John M The mere fact that something is difficult to think about does not mean that that is not how the universe works. Infinite universes are no less mind-boggling than a single infinite universe. For that matter, a finite single universe is also mind-boggling. There just isn't any simple, common sense way to think about the universe or universes. -- 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-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
2010/5/23 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com Stathis, I hate to go into a 'fault-finding' trip, but what gives you the idea that the universe works in any way WE, stupid consequences THINK OF in any fashion? The universe (???) or anything we translate into universes in our limited minds - MAY work in its own unrestricted ways and we - with our minuscule knowledge, even that distorted into our (personally different) minds, - imagine that *hypothetical* working into whatever we please. Then, pray, why not imagining it in ways we feel comfortable with? End of Sunday sermon John M You could just have said The universe/reality cannot be known. End of story, we can go drink our coffee. It's just seem to me a rather limited viewpoint. Quentin On 5/23/10, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 May 2010 05:26, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Stathis: how about a wording version of your remark: you may as well claim that we should not make up an infinite universe story that would boggle the human mind? I am not against the 'exist', because any idea does exist (at least in the mind of the initiator). John M The mere fact that something is difficult to think about does not mean that that is not how the universe works. Infinite universes are no less mind-boggling than a single infinite universe. For that matter, a finite single universe is also mind-boggling. There just isn't any simple, common sense way to think about the universe or universes. -- 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-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
Hi Alex, hi Quentin, On 20 May 2010, at 15:19, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi, 2010/5/20 awak mustata_a...@yahoo.com 1. Hello everyone! I'm Alex. I'm a civil engineer with an avid passion for Popular Science books. I'm not a scientist, nor a native English speaker, so please excuse my possible inconsistencies in both Scientific logic or English grammar. Again, sorry if this question has already been posed. 2. I've just finished reading Russel Standish's Theory of Nothing so the following question, concerning Quantum Immortality, has its base in the information found in this book. 3. From what i understand, Functionalism and Computationalism implies that my consciousness will follow all the world-lines where i live at a maximum age - this considering that there might be a limit to Quantum Immortality, even though this is in contradiction with the definition of this concept; for the purpose my question let's just say there might be some worlds where i live until 200 yrs. 4. From Wikipedia : Syncope (pronounced /ˈsɪŋkəpi/) is the medical term for fainting, a sudden, usually temporary, loss of consciousness generally caused by insufficient oxygen in the brain either through cerebral hypoxia or through hypotension, but possibly for other reasons. Typical symptoms progress through dizziness, clamminess of the skin, a dimming of vision or greyout, possibly tinnitus, complete loss of vision, weakness of limbs to physical collapse. These symptoms falling short of complete collapse, or a fall down, may be referred to as a syncoptic episode. So i take this as evidence that consciousness is not continuous. 5. MY QUESTION: Why is this possible, for me to pass out, losing my consciousness because of cerebral hypoxia, hypotension, or because i am hit by someone, considering that Quantum Immortality implies continuous consciousness? More to that, shouldn't we find ourselves in worlds where we don't sleep (where we are semi-conscious just like dolphins are because they sleep only with half of their brains) so we don't lose consciousness? Quantum immortality doesn't implies continuous consciousness... it just implies that there will always be a next moment. So you can passed out but you will eventually wake up. It is an eternally recurring question/objection to many-worlders. I think Quentin is basically right, as far as we agree that QM is correct and decoherence does its work. With DM (Digital mechanism, actually used by QM) the math is awfully complex. All we can say is that the measure one obeys a non boolean sort of quantum logic. IF DM and/or QM is correct the notion of normality for relatively computable histories (the arithmetical world-lines) makes higher your survive a cerebral hypoxia in the normal third person sharable common reality. For irreversible damages, like with alzheimer, or with death, the question of the first person indeterminacy is more complex. By a 'galois connection', you normally augment the possibilities, but there may be jumps, amnesia, and it may depend eventually on what you identify yourself with. Those 'modern theological' questions are awfully difficult, but computer science can translate them into questions (or set of questions) of arithmetic (in the DM theory, that is assuming we are digitalizable machine). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
On 5/23/2010 9:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Alex, hi Quentin, On 20 May 2010, at 15:19, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi, 2010/5/20 awak mustata_a...@yahoo.com mailto:mustata_a...@yahoo.com 1. Hello everyone! I'm Alex. I'm a civil engineer with an avid passion for Popular Science books. I'm not a scientist, nor a native English speaker, so please excuse my possible inconsistencies in both Scientific logic or English grammar. Again, sorry if this question has already been posed. 2. I've just finished reading Russel Standish's Theory of Nothing so the following question, concerning Quantum Immortality, has its base in the information found in this book. 3. From what i understand, Functionalism and Computationalism implies that my consciousness will follow all the world-lines where i live at a maximum age - this considering that there might be a limit to Quantum Immortality, even though this is in contradiction with the definition of this concept; for the purpose my question let's just say there might be some worlds where i live until 200 yrs. 4. From Wikipedia : Syncope (pronounced /ˈsɪŋkəpi/) is the medical term for fainting, a sudden, usually temporary, loss of consciousness generally caused by insufficient oxygen in the brain either through cerebral hypoxia or through hypotension, but possibly for other reasons. Typical symptoms progress through dizziness, clamminess of the skin, a dimming of vision or greyout, possibly tinnitus, complete loss of vision, weakness of limbs to physical collapse. These symptoms falling short of complete collapse, or a fall down, may be referred to as a syncoptic episode. So i take this as evidence that consciousness is not continuous. 5. MY QUESTION: Why is this possible, for me to pass out, losing my consciousness because of cerebral hypoxia, hypotension, or because i am hit by someone, considering that Quantum Immortality implies continuous consciousness? More to that, shouldn't we find ourselves in worlds where we don't sleep (where we are semi-conscious just like dolphins are because they sleep only with half of their brains) so we don't lose consciousness? Quantum immortality doesn't implies continuous consciousness... it just implies that there will always be a next moment. So you can passed out but you will eventually wake up. It is an eternally recurring question/objection to many-worlders. I think Quentin is basically right, as far as we agree that QM is correct and decoherence does its work. With DM (Digital mechanism, actually used by QM) the math is awfully complex. All we can say is that the measure one obeys a non boolean sort of quantum logic. IF DM and/or QM is correct the notion of normality for relatively computable histories (the arithmetical world-lines) makes higher your survive a cerebral hypoxia in the normal third person sharable common reality. For irreversible damages, like with alzheimer, or with death, the question of the first person indeterminacy is more complex. By a 'galois connection', you normally augment the possibilities, but there may be jumps, amnesia, and it may depend eventually on what you identify yourself with. But the jumps can be arbitrarily long. So is a jump of 10^10yrs = death? Brent Those 'modern theological' questions are awfully difficult, but computer science can translate them into questions (or set of questions) of arithmetic (in the DM theory, that is assuming we are digitalizable machine). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
Stathis: how about a wording version of your remark: you may as well claim that we should not make up an infinite universe story that would boggle the human mind? I am not against the 'exist', because any idea does exist (at least in the mind of the initiator). John M On 5/20/10, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On 20/05/2010, at 4:12 PM, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: I may have this all wrong, but it seems to me that for there to be umpteen trillion copies of a person there had to be umpteen trillion (UT) copies of his parents. And only a relatively small sub-group of those met and cohabited at the exact moment of his/her conception. But the same must have been true for their parents and their parents' parents and so forth back to the primoridal slime. And this staggering foliation of universes only covers one specific zygote of two specific gametes. What of all the other UT^UT combinations leading to the creation of other individuals just on this family tree? And what of all the other combinations and histories of every human, animal, insect and bacterium on this planet? Does it really make sense to assume numbers of universes so far beyond our ability to conceive of?marty a. You may as well claim that an infinite single universe should not exist because it boggles the human mind. 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-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
- Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:35 PM Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out On 20/05/2010, at 4:12 PM, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: I may have this all wrong, but it seems to me that for there to be umpteen trillion copies of a person there had to be umpteen trillion (UT) copies of his parents. And only a relatively small sub-group of those met and cohabited at the exact moment of his/her conception. But the same must have been true for their parents and their parents' parents and so forth back to the primoridal slime. And this staggering foliation of universes only covers one specific zygote of two specific gametes. What of all the other UT^UT combinations leading to the creation of other individuals just on this family tree? And what of all the other combinations and histories of every human, animal, insect and bacterium on this planet? Does it really make sense to assume numbers of universes so far beyond our ability to conceive of?marty a. You may as well claim that an infinite single universe should not exist because it boggles the human mind. Stathis Papaioannou I don't know, Stathis. Somehow it seems easier for me to conceive of ONE infinite universe than to conceive of umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen...universes. My mind is obviously more limited than yours. m.a. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
2010/5/21 m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net - Original Message - *From:* Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:35 PM *Subject:* Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out On 20/05/2010, at 4:12 PM, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: I may have this all wrong, but it seems to me that for there to be umpteen trillion copies of a person there had to be umpteen trillion (UT) copies of his parents. And only a relatively small sub-group of those met and cohabited at the exact moment of his/her conception. But the same must have been true for their parents and their parents' parents and so forth back to the primoridal slime. And this staggering foliation of universes only covers one specific zygote of two specific gametes. What of all the other UT^UT combinations leading to the creation of other individuals just on this family tree? And what of all the other combinations and histories of every human, animal, insect and bacterium on this planet? Does it really make sense to assume numbers of universes so far beyond our ability to conceive of?marty a. You may as well claim that an infinite single universe should not exist because it boggles the human mind. Stathis Papaioannou I don't know, Stathis. Somehow it seems easier for me to conceive of ONE infinite universe than to conceive of umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen...universes. My mind is obviously more limited than yours. m.a. Why in the first case you call it infinite and in the other umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen. Either case, it's infinite so your mind couldn't encompass what it is either way... Why choosing one infinite universe versus an infinity of infinite universe ? Regards, Quentin -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
2010/5/21 m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net - Original Message - *From:* Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:35 PM *Subject:* Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out Why in the first case you call it infinite and in the other umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen. Either case, it's infinite so your mind couldn't encompass what it is either way... Why choosing one infinite universe versus an infinity of infinite universe ? There is more than one kind of infinity! Aleph0, aleph1 etc. I don't know if this is significant here. Nick Prince -- -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Quantum-Immortality-considering-%22Passing-Out%22-tp28620760p28639048.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
- Original Message - From: Quentin Anciaux To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 9:19 AM Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out 2010/5/21 m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:35 PM Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out On 20/05/2010, at 4:12 PM, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: I may have this all wrong, but it seems to me that for there to be umpteen trillion copies of a person there had to be umpteen trillion (UT) copies of his parents. And only a relatively small sub-group of those met and cohabited at the exact moment of his/her conception. But the same must have been true for their parents and their parents' parents and so forth back to the primoridal slime. And this staggering foliation of universes only covers one specific zygote of two specific gametes. What of all the other UT^UT combinations leading to the creation of other individuals just on this family tree? And what of all the other combinations and histories of every human, animal, insect and bacterium on this planet? Does it really make sense to assume numbers of universes so far beyond our ability to conceive of?marty a. You may as well claim that an infinite single universe should not exist because it boggles the human mind. Stathis Papaioannou I don't know, Stathis. Somehow it seems easier for me to conceive of ONE infinite universe than to conceive of umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen...universes. My mind is obviously more limited than yours. m.a. Why in the first case you call it infinite and in the other umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen. Either case, it's infinite so your mind couldn't encompass what it is either way... Why choosing one infinite universe versus an infinity of infinite universe ? Stathis: This is of course entirely subjective, but I feel some conceptual grasp of one infinite universe probably because it's (only) ONE. I'm comfortable with ONE of something. Trying to envision an infinity of infinities seems rather hopeless because I can't even get through the first infinity...which leaves me no conceptual tool to deal with the second. In other words, if I try to solve infinity x infinity the first part of the statement is so mysterious that I have no idea of how to use it to influence the second part. Hope this makes some sense. marty a. Regards, Quentin -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
On 5/21/2010 5:58 PM, m.a. wrote: - Original Message - *From:* Quentin Anciaux mailto:allco...@gmail.com *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Friday, May 21, 2010 9:19 AM *Subject:* Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out 2010/5/21 m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net mailto:marty...@bellsouth.net - Original Message - *From:* Stathis Papaioannou mailto:stath...@gmail.com *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:35 PM *Subject:* Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out On 20/05/2010, at 4:12 PM, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net mailto:marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: I may have this all wrong, but it seems to me that for there to be umpteen trillion copies of a person there had to be umpteen trillion (UT) copies of his parents. And only a relatively small sub-group of those met and cohabited at the exact moment of his/her conception. But the same must have been true for their parents and their parents' parents and so forth back to the primoridal slime. And this staggering foliation of universes only covers one specific zygote of two specific gametes. What of all the other UT^UT combinations leading to the creation of other individuals just on this family tree? And what of all the other combinations and histories of every human, animal, insect and bacterium on this planet? Does it really make sense to assume numbers of universes so far beyond our ability to conceive of?marty a. You may as well claim that an infinite single universe should not exist because it boggles the human mind. Stathis Papaioannou I don't know, Stathis. Somehow it seems easier for me to conceive of ONE infinite universe than to conceive of umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen...universes. My mind is obviously more limited than yours. m.a. Just boggling the unmathematical intuition is not a reason to reject infinities. But infinities are acceptable precisely insofar at they do not boggle the mathematical mind. If one can say exactly what they mean by an infinity, such as the cardinality of the integers, then they can be a part of our model of the world. But if it's just some indefinite infinity then I think m.a. is right. Since QM lives in the space of square integrable complex functions, it's already a bigger infinity than the integers and the reals. I'm not sure you can define Borel sets over elements of this space; and if you can't you've boggled the mathematics. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
1. Hello everyone! I'm Alex. I'm a civil engineer with an avid passion for Popular Science books. I'm not a scientist, nor a native English speaker, so please excuse my possible inconsistencies in both Scientific logic or English grammar. Again, sorry if this question has already been posed. 2. I've just finished reading Russel Standish's Theory of Nothing so the following question, concerning Quantum Immortality, has its base in the information found in this book. 3. From what i understand, Functionalism and Computationalism implies that my consciousness will follow all the world-lines where i live at a maximum age - this considering that there might be a limit to Quantum Immortality, even though this is in contradiction with the definition of this concept; for the purpose my question let's just say there might be some worlds where i live until 200 yrs. 4. From Wikipedia : Syncope (pronounced /ˈsɪŋkəpi/) is the medical term for fainting, a sudden, usually temporary, loss of consciousness generally caused by insufficient oxygen in the brain either through cerebral hypoxia or through hypotension, but possibly for other reasons. Typical symptoms progress through dizziness, clamminess of the skin, a dimming of vision or greyout, possibly tinnitus, complete loss of vision, weakness of limbs to physical collapse. These symptoms falling short of complete collapse, or a fall down, may be referred to as a syncoptic episode. So i take this as evidence that consciousness is not continuous. 5. MY QUESTION: Why is this possible, for me to pass out, losing my consciousness because of cerebral hypoxia, hypotension, or because i am hit by someone, considering that Quantum Immortality implies continuous consciousness? More to that, shouldn't we find ourselves in worlds where we don't sleep (where we are semi-conscious just like dolphins are because they sleep only with half of their brains) so we don't lose consciousness? With lots of admiration to the Everything List, that had a lot to do with producing Russel's book, i salute you all! Alex. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Quantum-Immortality-considering-%22Passing-Out%22-tp28620760p28620760.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
Hi, 2010/5/20 awak mustata_a...@yahoo.com 1. Hello everyone! I'm Alex. I'm a civil engineer with an avid passion for Popular Science books. I'm not a scientist, nor a native English speaker, so please excuse my possible inconsistencies in both Scientific logic or English grammar. Again, sorry if this question has already been posed. 2. I've just finished reading Russel Standish's Theory of Nothing so the following question, concerning Quantum Immortality, has its base in the information found in this book. 3. From what i understand, Functionalism and Computationalism implies that my consciousness will follow all the world-lines where i live at a maximum age - this considering that there might be a limit to Quantum Immortality, even though this is in contradiction with the definition of this concept; for the purpose my question let's just say there might be some worlds where i live until 200 yrs. 4. From Wikipedia : Syncope (pronounced /ˈsɪŋkəpi/) is the medical term for fainting, a sudden, usually temporary, loss of consciousness generally caused by insufficient oxygen in the brain either through cerebral hypoxia or through hypotension, but possibly for other reasons. Typical symptoms progress through dizziness, clamminess of the skin, a dimming of vision or greyout, possibly tinnitus, complete loss of vision, weakness of limbs to physical collapse. These symptoms falling short of complete collapse, or a fall down, may be referred to as a syncoptic episode. So i take this as evidence that consciousness is not continuous. 5. MY QUESTION: Why is this possible, for me to pass out, losing my consciousness because of cerebral hypoxia, hypotension, or because i am hit by someone, considering that Quantum Immortality implies continuous consciousness? More to that, shouldn't we find ourselves in worlds where we don't sleep (where we are semi-conscious just like dolphins are because they sleep only with half of their brains) so we don't lose consciousness? Quantum immortality doesn't implies continuous consciousness... it just implies that there will always be a next moment. So you can passed out but you will eventually wake up. Regards, Quentin With lots of admiration to the Everything List, that had a lot to do with producing Russel's book, i salute you all! Alex. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Quantum-Immortality-considering-%22Passing-Out%22-tp28620760p28620760.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
I may have this all wrong, but it seems to me that for there to be umpteen trillion copies of a person there had to be umpteen trillion (UT) copies of his parents. And only a relatively small sub-group of those met and cohabited at the exact moment of his/her conception. But the same must have been true for their parents and their parents' parents and so forth back to the primoridal slime. And this staggering foliation of universes only covers one specific zygote of two specific gametes. What of all the other UT^UT combinations leading to the creation of other individuals just on this family tree? And what of all the other combinations and histories of every human, animal, insect and bacterium on this planet? Does it really make sense to assume numbers of universes so far beyond our ability to conceive of?marty a. - Original Message - From: Quentin Anciaux To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 9:19 AM Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out Hi, 2010/5/20 awak mustata_a...@yahoo.com 1. Hello everyone! I'm Alex. I'm a civil engineer with an avid passion for Popular Science books. I'm not a scientist, nor a native English speaker, so please excuse my possible inconsistencies in both Scientific logic or English grammar. Again, sorry if this question has already been posed. 2. I've just finished reading Russel Standish's Theory of Nothing so the following question, concerning Quantum Immortality, has its base in the information found in this book. 3. From what i understand, Functionalism and Computationalism implies that my consciousness will follow all the world-lines where i live at a maximum age - this considering that there might be a limit to Quantum Immortality, even though this is in contradiction with the definition of this concept; for the purpose my question let's just say there might be some worlds where i live until 200 yrs. 4. From Wikipedia : Syncope (pronounced /ˈsɪŋkəpi/) is the medical term for fainting, a sudden, usually temporary, loss of consciousness generally caused by insufficient oxygen in the brain either through cerebral hypoxia or through hypotension, but possibly for other reasons. Typical symptoms progress through dizziness, clamminess of the skin, a dimming of vision or greyout, possibly tinnitus, complete loss of vision, weakness of limbs to physical collapse. These symptoms falling short of complete collapse, or a fall down, may be referred to as a syncoptic episode. So i take this as evidence that consciousness is not continuous. 5. MY QUESTION: Why is this possible, for me to pass out, losing my consciousness because of cerebral hypoxia, hypotension, or because i am hit by someone, considering that Quantum Immortality implies continuous consciousness? More to that, shouldn't we find ourselves in worlds where we don't sleep (where we are semi-conscious just like dolphins are because they sleep only with half of their brains) so we don't lose consciousness? Quantum immortality doesn't implies continuous consciousness... it just implies that there will always be a next moment. So you can passed out but you will eventually wake up. Regards, Quentin With lots of admiration to the Everything List, that had a lot to do with producing Russel's book, i salute you all! Alex. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Quantum-Immortality-considering-%22Passing-Out%22-tp28620760p28620760.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out
On 20/05/2010, at 4:12 PM, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: I may have this all wrong, but it seems to me that for there to be umpteen trillion copies of a person there had to be umpteen trillion (UT) copies of his parents. And only a relatively small sub-group of those met and cohabited at the exact moment of his/her conception. But the same must have been true for their parents and their parents' parents and so forth back to the primoridal slime. And this staggering foliation of universes only covers one specific zygote of two specific gametes. What of all the other UT^UT combinations leading to the creation of other individuals just on this family tree? And what of all the other combinations and histories of every human, animal, insect and bacterium on this planet? Does it really make sense to assume numbers of universes so far beyond our ability to conceive of?marty a. You may as well claim that an infinite single universe should not exist because it boggles the human mind. 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-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
