Fred Hoyle suggested the idea of quantum suicide for a civilisation in
“October the 1st is too late” written around 1964 I think. That’s the first
occurrence I know of it.
Charles
_
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net Sep 05 07:06PM -0400
On 9/5/2012 6:52 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I think he was just saying that point events do not exist.
So why discuss them?
Yes, what's the point?
:-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
: RE: FIN insanity
From: Charles Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: FIN insanity
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:26:24 +1200
On the other hand I can't see how FIN is supposed to work, either. I
*think* the argument runs something like this...
Even if you have just had
as a
severed head, or . . . what??? Just curious!
Charles
-Original Message-
From: Charles Goodwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, 4 September 2001 1:42 p.m.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: FIN too
Um, OK, I don't want to get into an infinite argument here. I
guess we
. The sort of thing
we're discussing here can often be
conveniently abbreviated as 'the laws of physics'. I'm not sure what point you're
trying to make by arguing about semantics?
Charles
- Original Message -
From: Charles Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL
-Original Message-
From: George Levy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2001 10:48 a.m.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Conventional QTI = False
Charles Goodwin wrote:
George Levy wrote
I don't know if there is an accepted formulation for QTI
September 2001 2:32 p.m.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: FIN too
From: Charles Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Um, OK, I don't want to get into an infinite argument here.
I guess we both
understand the other's viewpoint. (For the record: I don't
see any reason
to accept QTI as correct, but think
Hi, I have just joined this list after seeing it mentioned on the Fabric of Reality
list
Would someone mind briefly explaining what FIN is (or at least what the letters stand
for)? Is it some version of QTI (Quantum
theory of immortality) ?
Assuming it *is* related to QTI...
Why should a
Hi, I'm sorry, it's an accident. I keep hitting 'reply' rather than 'reply to all' and
because of the way the list is set up, which
means I reply to the person who posted the message. It's a bad habit, because other
lists I post to allow you to just hit 'reply'
and your message goes to the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Suppose you almost cause a terrible accident. You are driving too fast
down a quiet street and a child suddenly steps out. You swerve and manage
to miss him. You drive on, nervous and anxious, and feeling
very
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
There are different versions of QTI (let's not call it FIN). The most
reasonable one (my version, of course) takes into account the possibility
that you find yourself alive somewhere else in the universe, without any
-Original Message-
From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
The problem is that the probability isn't 0% that you'd find yourself at
your current age (according to the QTI - assume I put that after every
sentence!). Because you HAVE to pass through your current age to reach
-Original Message-
From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
The problem is that the probability isn't 0% that you'd find yourself at
your current age (according to the QTI - assume I put that after every
sentence!). Because you HAVE to pass through your current age to reach
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
In the case of a person suffering from a terminal disease, it
is much more
likely that he will survive in a branch where he was not
diagnosed with the
disease, than in a branch where the disease is magically
cured.
-Original Message-
From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I suspect you are trying to find ways of making QTI compatible with
Jacques ASSA based argument, when it is clear his argument fails
completely. Not that the argument is
It seems unlikely that it could be otherwise. Presumably the impulse to make a
decision has to originate from a lower level,
assuming that consciousness is supported by layers of unconscious processing? However
the decisions in question were to do with when
to perform a simple action - pressing
-Original Message-
From: Jesse Mazer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Well, I hope you'd agree that which observer-moment I am
right now is not a
matter of definition, but a matter of fact. My opinion is
that the global
measure on all observer-moments is not telling us something
like
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
So, I would say that you will always find yourself alive
somewhere. But it
is interesting to consider only our universe and ignore
quantum effects.
Even then you will always find yourself alive somewhere, but
you
: Conditional probability continuity of consciousness
Charles Goodwin wrote:
From: Marchal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I mean the feeling of being spotted could perhaps be explained, and
certainly is in need for an explanation.
You lost me with that last sentence, and just when I thought
-Original Message-
From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
2) You would also be the same person if the surgeon made a new brain
identically to yours.
I'm not sure what you mean here. The new brain would be
the same as the
old you, the old one would remain the same,
-Original Message-
From: Hal Ruhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I think I get it. If nothing exists, that is a state which contains some
information (i.e. nothing exists). To reduce the total
information content of the system to zero, the state of nothing existing
must be balanced by
-Original Message-
From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I've explained that in other posts, but as you see, the idea is indeed
mathematically incoherent - unless you just mean the conditional effective
probability which a measure distribution defines by definition.
-Original Message-
From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I've explained that in other posts, but as you see, the idea is indeed
mathematically incoherent - unless you just mean the conditional effective
probability which a measure distribution defines by
-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Except that it is possible to perform an infinite amount of
computation in the big crunch due to Tipler's argument, and only a
finite amount of computation with the open universe (Dyson's
argument). Sort of the
-Original Message-
From: Brent Meeker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 10 October 2001 2:23 a.m.
But then why do you say that a duplicate of your brain processes in a
computer would not be conscious. You seem to be
discriminating between
a biological duplicate and a
-Original Message-
From: George Levy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, 21 September 2001 8:18 a.m.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Who is the enemy?
I just say this because I consider real atheist as very religious
people, and, what is worth is that most of the time
-Original Message-
From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
The appeal of that kind of model is based on the illusion that we can
remember past experiences. We can't remember past experiences at all,
actually. We only experience memory because of the _current_ way our
-Original Message-
From: Brent Meeker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 10 October 2001 4:06 a.m.
It was a hypothetical that Bruno used. It's pretty certain nobody knows
how to do it now and it might never be practical. But if the
processes, including the sensory ones,
-Original Message-
From: Hal Ruhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
2) The Nothing contains at least some information: Whenever it is manifest any
question asking if it is manifest must
receive the response yes.
I don't understand this bit at all, sorry!
The idea here is that while
-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
This case bothers me too. The initial (or perhaps traditional)
response is that consciousness is lost the instant blood pressure
drops in the brain, a few hundred milliseconds after the neck is
severed, thus the
-Original Message-
From: Marchal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Perhaps. But if you do that move, everyone is resurrected in
everyone, and
there is only one person in the multiverse. I don't know. James Higgo
was more radical on this, he defended the idea of zero person.
With just
-Original Message-
From: Hal Ruhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2001 4:35 p.m.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: In one page or less
Dear Charles:
In response to another of your comments and to clarify:
If nothing exists, including any external
-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I wasn't referring to that snippet, but another one discussing the
evolution of superclusters of galaxies. The theory predicts that the
universe will ultimately come to be dominated by said clusters. The
snippet I
-Original Message-
From: rwas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, 15 September 2001 3:08 p.m.
Sequential, temporal,
in-the-box thinking is not how to transcend the physical in my view.
I think some of the people here would argue that you *can't* transcend the physical
(or
I was talking about the laws of physics. It's possible in principle for those to be
known (I think). One can also know all there is
to know while knowing that one's knowledge is incomplete! Obviously a complete
description of reality is impossible (where would you
store the information about
-Original Message-
From: Brent Meeker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 October 2001 12:06 p.m.
To: Charles Goodwin
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: ODP: Free will/consciousness/ineffabili
My intuition doesn't tell me whether or not I would have a 'feeling' of
free
-Original Message-
From: Hal Ruhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
This is a simple and short effort to present my current
ideas. To aid
communication it is not intended to follow an established means of
mathematical expression. I am completely out of time so I
hope it reads ok.
that he'll
live to be 80 is 1/80?)
Charles
-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2001 12:35 p.m.
To: Charles Goodwin
Cc: Everything-List (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Conventional QTI = False
The reason for failure of Jacques
-Original Message-
From: Jesse Mazer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, 7 September 2001 6:39 a.m.
Hmm, I think we actually have a full spectrum of opinions here...Jacques
believes only in absolute probability, Bruno believes only in conditional
probabilities, and I believe
Hi Bruno
What observable properties of black holes may be explained by the fact that
they don't erase information? Is that a purely hypothetical suggestion, or
is it something we may observe in the near future, or may have already
observed, indirectly?
Thanks!
Cheers,
Charles
--
You
Black hole evaporation. I am thinking about some work by Hawking.
Could you point me towards it? I know Hawking conceded a bet on this
recently but I'm not sure why.
But $any* true erasing of information is forbid in any theory where QM
applies universally. Unitary evolution cannot erase
Hi everyone and everything, I was discussing comp and similar things with
Liz the other day and we came across a sticking point in what I think (from
memory) is step 7 of the UDA. Maybe you can help?
I'm assuming AR, "Yes, Doctor" and so on. At step 7 we reach the point
where we assume that a
Thank you, we should have remembered that zig-zag approach!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To
43 matches
Mail list logo
