Jack,
As Stathis and Quentin wrote, we have approached the core of the
disagreement.
You (Jack) seem to have a very "quaint" idea of personal identity - some
kind of essentialism. Strange that you hold that theory and call talk of
1st person/3rd person distinction "sloganeering".
It seems, p
2009/2/12 Johnathan Corgan :
> It is an open question (to me at least) whether there are any observer
> moments without successors, i.e., where the amplitude of the SW goes to
> zero. If it does not, then this implies that the always branching tree
> of observer moments has no leaf nodes--rather
Kim,
I presume you have clear ideas about what 'life' may be (to live?) and the
a-temporal distinction of 'ever'. (It is definitely not = 'a long long
time').
I paraphrase you wisdom as:
time in our opinion goes as long as we live(?) so 'after that' is not
identified.
My reasons for not including
On 11 Feb 2009, at 20:47, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> On 11 Feb 2009, at 00:38, Günther Greindl wrote:
>>
>>> I'm with Mike and Brent.
>>>
>>> Bruno, giving A1 and A2 mirrors which would show different stuff
>>> violates Stathis' assumption of running the _same_ computatio
On 11 Feb 2009, at 18:30, Saibal Mitra wrote:
>
> Welcome back Jack Mallah!
>
> I have a different argument against QTI.
>
> I had a nice dream last night, but unfortunately it suddenly ended.
> Now, this is empirical evidence against QTI because, according to the
> QTI, the life expectancy of t
On 11 Feb 2009, at 21:51, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
>> Welcome back Jack Mallah!
>>
>> I have a different argument against QTI.
>>
>> I had a nice dream last night, but unfortunately it suddenly ended.
>> Now, this is empirical evidence against QTI because, according to the
>>
On 11 Feb 2009, at 22:19, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> This idea seems inconsistent with MWI. In QM the split is uncaused
> so it's
> hard to see why its influence extends into the past and increases
> the measure of
> computations that were identical before the split.
I got the inspiration f
On 11 Feb 2009, at 23:46, John Mikes wrote:
> Dear Bruno, just lightening up a bit...you know that I graduated
> already from 2nd yr grade school so I have an open mind criticizing
> high science.
>
> Not that if I see 'I' that means 1, but if I see 'III' that does
> not mean 3 to me, it
--- On Thu, 2/12/09, George Levy wrote:
> I have also been overwhelmed by the volume on this list.
> The idea is not to take more than you can chew.
Indeed.
> > --- On Wed, 2/11/09, George Levy
> > If that were the case, the Born Rule would fail.
> Perhaps the probability rule would be more li
Excellent post Johnatan.
Of course those who know a bit of AUDA (which I have already explained
on the list) know that from the third person self-reference views we
have cul-de-sac everywhere ("we die all the times", cf the
"Papaioannou multiverses"), and this is what forces us, when we wan
On 12 Feb 2009, at 02:59, Jack Mallah wrote:
>
> Hi George. The everything list feels just like old times, no?
I am afraid we are just a bit bactracking 10 years ago.
No problem. After all, concerning theology, I am asking people to
backtrack 1500 years ago (1480 to be precise).
> Which
I'm sorry but I can't resist to paste this short conversation between
Lord Blackadder and his servant Baldrick. Maybe you know this british
blackadder comedy.
>> If you teach: III and III "mean" 3 and 7, then you said nothing,
>> just named them.
>
>
> That was my point. To talk on notat
Ronald,
Thanks for the reference. Of course Lobo implicitly assume
physicalism, so we cannot really built from that.
I guess you know that Gödel is the first one showing that there exist
solutions of Einstein's GR equations with closed time loop.
Circling computations exist (trivially) in th
On 12 Feb 2009, at 05:38, Tom Caylor wrote:
>
> But of course you would worry just as much if the clone were replaced
> by a zombie... I guess that gets back to the distinction between
> first person and third person.
It seems to me that is the problem indeed. At the same time, it seems
obv
On 12 Feb 2009, at 14:30, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> 2009/2/12 Johnathan Corgan :
>
>> It is an open question (to me at least) whether there are any
>> observer
>> moments without successors, i.e., where the amplitude of the SW
>> goes to
>> zero. If it does not, then this implies that
Today is Charles Darwin's 200th birthday (the 150th anniversay of the
publication of "On the Origin of Species", and we Americans at least
are also celebrating the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln.
Perhaps at this milestone it would be good to bring up the question,
What bearing does Darwin's le
My present inserts in Italics - some parts of the posts erased for brevity
John
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 11 Feb 2009, at 23:46, John Mikes wrote:
>
> (...)
>
Not that if I see 'I' that means 1, but if I see 'III' that does not
> mean 3 to
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 04:48:22PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Excellent post Johnatan.
>
> Of course those who know a bit of AUDA (which I have already explained
> on the list) know that from the third person self-reference views we
> have cul-de-sac everywhere ("we die all the times",
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 09:05:20AM -0800, Tom Caylor wrote:
>
> Today is Charles Darwin's 200th birthday (the 150th anniversay of the
> publication of "On the Origin of Species", and we Americans at least
> are also celebrating the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln.
>
> Perhaps at this milestone
19 matches
Mail list logo
