I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, but it wouldn't surprise me if
the Turing subset of my world has additional constraints - namely the
worlds seen by observers whose O(x)'s are prefix machines, not just maps.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 05:56:50PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Le 10-juin-05, ?
On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 07:43:30PM -0700, "Hal Finney" wrote:
> Jesse Mazer writes:
> > But I explained in my last post how the ASSA could also apply to an
> > arbitrary "next" observer-moment as opposed to an arbitrary "current"
> > one--if you impose the condition I mentioned about the relation
Russell Standish writes:
[quoting Norman Samish]
> Suppose we take ten apparently identical ball bearings and put stickers
on
> each with the identifiers "1" through "10." We leave the room where the
> balls with stickers are, and a robot removes the stickers and mixes the
> balls up so that
Daddycaylor writes:
I'm new to this so I haven't read about all your people's different
theories. I've read quite a bit on transhumanist stuff, Aubrey DeGrey,
Freeman
Dyson, ... it seems people are trying anything they can imagine, and
expanding
into what they can't imagine, to look for
Bruno Marchal writes:
But the basic idea is simple perhaps: Suppose I must choose between
a) I am 3-multiplied in ten exemplars. One will get an orange juice and 9
will be tortured.
b) I am 3-multiplied in ten exemplars. One will be tortured, and 9 will
get a glass of orange juice instead
- Original Message -
From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 02:43 AM
Subject: RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
>
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent:
- Original Message -
From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 06:41 PM
Subject: RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
>
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent:
This is *exactly* the way it is! Each moment is ephemeral; once the next
moment comes along, the previous one could not be any more thoroughly dead
and gone from the universe if it had sat on top of a detonating nuclear
bomb. Of course, the difference if you sit on a nuclear bomb is that, QTI
a
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 09:14:11PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >There is certainly no 3rd person experiment that can be done to
> >distinguish between these two interpretations, and the only 1st person
> >experiment I can think of relates to tests of quantum immortality. I
> >find it hard t
9 matches
Mail list logo
