oul: "a number which moves itself". (Like a
> practionners of comp can live if you remember the TEs)
>
> But of course "I am a number" taken literaly, is a
> category mistake. From the third person point of view
> I am much more like a cloud of numbers spreading in
&g
point.
- Original Message -
From: rwas rwas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: James Higgo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: (Quantum) suicide not necessary?
>
> > > There is no 'you'. 'You' don&#
Scott: that was clearly ill-thought-out. Of course difference does not imply
time, and of course this e-mail is not proof that there is a 'person' called
James...
- Original Message -
From: Scott D. Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: James Higgo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
It is no more a game than the rest of living.
- Original Message -
From: Scott D. Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: James Higgo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: on formally in
Bravo, George. This is a derivation of Liebnitz's point.
How many more ingenious 'solutions' will there be to the paradoxes that
belief in a 'first person' leads to? Quite a few I imagine, as nobody can
countenance for a split-second that they don't exist as a 'person'. They
absolutely insist on
nday, March 18, 2001 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: Transporter Paradox
> On 17-Mar-01, James Higgo wrote:
> > Bravo, George. This is a derivation of Liebnitz's point.
> >
> > How many more ingenious 'solutions' will there be to the paradoxes
> > that belief in a &
Thought itself is the thinker. If you remove the thought, there is no
thinker to be found.
(Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught)
- Original Message -
From: jamikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 11:15 PM
Subject: Intelligence
> A friend tol
I agree, except that there is no 'transition' from one OM to the next. What
is it that 'transits' ?
- Original Message -
From: George Levy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: on formally describable universes and measures
>
>
> Br
Oh, I forgot to mention Julian Barbour's 'the end
of time' - see
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195117298/qid=981890976/sr=1-1/ref=sc_b_1/103-1683623-4661404
Vic Stenger's book is called, 'Timeless
Reality : Symmetry, Simplicity, and Multiple Universes
'
Now, George, you can't
Gilles, I have just read and enjoyed your post of 1st August.
The problem we face, defining when a device is conscious, puts me in
mind of Bunge's comments on the problems we have understanding the
universe as a whole: we have troubnle because we are trying to see from
the outside something which
I agree - thought is its own foundation. See www.higgo.com/quantum
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: everything list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)
>
> Joel:
> ... But there MAY be some reasons to wa
So what is it, this mystical soul, that 'transits' OMs?
- Original Message -
From: George Levy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 5:34 AM
Subject: Re: on formally indescribable merde
>
>
> James Higgo wrote:
&g
rom: Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: James Higgo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Michael Rosefield
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Saibal Mitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: (Quantum) suicide not necessary?
> On 03-Mar-0
That's what happens when you can't let go of the idea of self.
- Original Message -
From: Michael Rosefield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: James Higgo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 7:24 PM
Subject: R
Oh, I forgot to mention Julian Barbour's 'the end
of time' - seehttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195117298/qid=3D981890976/sr=3D1-=1/ref=3Dsc_b_1/103-1683623-4661404Vic
Stenger's book is called, 'Timeless Reality : Symmetry, Simplicity, =and
Multiple Universes 'Now, George, you can't s
ent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: James Higgo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Michael Rosefield
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Saibal Mitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: (Quantum) suicide not necessary?
> I checked out your
gory mistake.
- Original Message -
From:
Saibal Mitra
To: James Higgo ; Michael Rosefield ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 4:34
PM
Subject: QTI
I also don't think that 'Quantum Theory of
Immortality' is correct in its conventional f
> > > It is common experience that a single person is
> > > more likely to have an illusion than that a common illusion be shared
> > > by several persons. Hence 'the third person perspective' is not an
> > > illusion.
> >
> > Now we are
nal Message -
From: Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: on formally indescribable merde
> James Higgo wrote:
>
>
> >So what is it, this mystical soul, that 'transits' OMs?
>
>
> Th
Guys, this is really good stuff. This is answering my question of a couple
of weeks ago. I will quote it in a paper with your permission.
James
- Original Message -
From: Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: on formally descr
Oh, as to 'this is trivial - we still perceive
ourselves as continuous beings' - I guess as far as you're concerned, the
Earth does not move.
- Original Message -
From:
Michael Rosefield
To: James Higgo ; Saibal Mitra ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, M
al Message -
From:
Michael Rosefield
To: James Higgo ; Saibal Mitra ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 3:34
PM
Subject: Re: (Quantum) suicide not
necessary?
>
From: James Higgo
> Before I was blind
but now I see.
> I was the one who
Before I was blind but now
I see.
I was the one who came up
with the expression, 'Quantum Theory of Immortality', and I now see that it's
false - and all this stuff in this thread is based on the same mistake. See www.higgo.com/qti , a site dedicated to the
idea.
There is no 'you'. 'You
Bruno, I'm of the Liebnitz school: each OM is independent and unrelated to
another except in that it will, of course, share certain characteristics.
It's bound to, as all OMs exist. What is the relevance of 'entangled
histories'?
Another point: come on guys, explain how one OM 'becomes' another.
- Original Message -
From: Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: Consciousness schmonscioisness
> "James Higgo (co.uk)" wrote:
>
> >It's been almost two years you guys have been hun
Hello there everythingers. I submit for your
consideration a new poem, "A Monad's Manifesto":
Here I plant my national flag.This manifesto is
me.This idea is I: someoneLiving with that other,An illusion of a
reader.How risible it is to me:You think there is a you.A
structure in a real worl
Bruno,
In conversations with friends, I am often asked why the minimal Kolmogorov
complexity of Tegmark's schema has any relevance to the physical world. Why
should information theory tell us anything about the 'real' world? What
grounds do we have to believe that the stuff of the 'physical' worl
petered out - how is it getting on?
James
- Original Message -
From: Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; James Higgo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 3:52 PM
Subject: Out of line ?
> Hi Brent, Hi James,
>
&
It's been almost two years you guys have been hung up on this 'I' nonsense -
can't you conceive, for one moment, that there is no 'I'? Can you grasp the
indisputable fact that this debate is meaningless if there is no 'I', just
observer-moments without an 'observer'? Has anybody out there understo
Jesse, nobody on this list is unaware of Carter's paper, to which I and
others have referred in several of our papers. The point is, life is a
high-level concept, not relevant to the more fundamental debate I thought we
were having. What was the point of Anthropic Reasoning 101?
> So my question
30 matches
Mail list logo
