Botanical Entheogenic Mechanism (Was: Re: Making money via quantum suicide)
On 27 Jun 2008, at 20:52, Tom Caylor wrote: > > On Jun 8, 2:43 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 06 Jun 2008, at 23:35, Tom Caylor wrote: >> ... >>> One consistent configuration is that we are all immortal and that >>> part >>> of this immortal being is something that is outside of what we can >>> observe scientifically, including other persons' deaths. >> >> I am with you. But we can address scientifically the question "does >> self-introspecting machine refer correctly to something they can >> recognize as being something they cannot observe in a third person >> communicable (scientific, objective) way and yet still *know* that >> they can make the experience of it (for example through prays, >> reflexion, meditation, 1-self-introspection, starvation, accidents, >> drugs, or some other (hopefully) genuine 3-self-manipulations, ...)? >> >> Bruno >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > If the basis of everything is a Person, then this can make my above > statement make sense. Yes. As I said. Although perhaps from different motivation or reason. But as you know the platonist (who believes in A V ~A) universal (who believes in all true Sigma_1 sentences) Lobian (who knows that) machine has three "unique" Gods available for her. - The ONE, Plato's notion of Truth, which has to be searched for, and which can hardly be said to be a "person", at least a priori. For each machine such a "truth" is unnameable or non definable by the machine. - The INTELLIGIBLE, which splits into two (its terrestrial part, described respectively by G and its "divine" part described by G* , at the level of propositional logic). The terrestrial part is a sort of cold, objective, scientific, person. The divine part, is not so easily amenable to personhood. The universal machine and Plotinus agree that this is a difficult question! Aristotle is very ambiguous here, imo. - The SOUL, or universal self or universal mind. It is the knower, the unnameable self, (the one described by the logic S4Grz). This one is the closer to the notion of "God as a person". Perhaps even the *unique* person (yet an open problem here). But it is closer to the eastern notion of God, than to the western notion. it is the one you can recognize within. The one about which Alan Watts talked about in most of its book, including "Beyond Theology", "The Book", "Joyous Cosmology", for examples. He is the subject of first person immortality. They are dream technics which can help you to "remember", by, curiously enough perhaps, forgetting everything else. And there are plants which can accelerate the process (like Alan watts explained in "Joyous cosmology"). This leads to a Botanical form of entheogenic computationalism, where you say "yes to the doctor-plant!" Entheogen: means "reveals the God within". Actually, those who find Plotinus' way of talking a bit laborious or those who dislike his vocabulary, can read as well the trip reports of entheogenic experiences. This is especially clear with the trips made under Salvia Divinorum. See for example: http://www.sagewisdom.org/experiences.html Personally I have used mainly cafeine, (and sometimes other stuff) for helping to generate realistic-enough dream's state, when it does not prevent sleep altogether (!). See my chapter on Dreams in "Conscience et Mécanisme": "Le cerveau, le rêve et la réalité" if you want more on dreams as a mean to get "altered state of consciousness" for the purpose of illustrating the UD proof. Cafeine does not help for getting the amnesia, alas, but the amnesia can be prepared by some yoga or meditation exercises. A minimal understanding of the notion of dream is of course an important prerequisite to get the sixth step of the UDA. I don't recommand you to try Salvia Divinorum though, but if you do, verify it is legal in your country. It is illegal in Australia, Belgium, South Korea and in some US states. In case you do, follow the user's manual: The User's Guide in PDF format. I could come back on this one day. Of course the UDA pill is enough to get the things "scientifically", that is in the modest (based on sharable theory) and communicable (polite) manner. But some experience with consciousness could help a lot, I guess. Or (re)read directly Plato and Plotinus, or perhaps any "mystic". > Can we really have a scientific understanding > of a person? It depends what you mean by "scientific understanding". We never understand our theories, that is why we invent them. Scientific understanding is always reduction of set of beliefs into other set of beliefs. We understand only "trivially" the initial chosen beliefs. > This would by definition be one person having a > scientific understanding of their relationship to another person. I think you are confusing two levels. We can build a theory (and indeed all comp theories are necessary like that) where we can,
Re: Making money via quantum suicide
Tom, > which requires repeatability. Love (the mysterious force of good > relationship between persons) does not "work" within a scientific you should have a look at the rich literature on love, which is the subject of (ever growing) scientific study. Here a small beginning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love#Scientific_views Love is not mysterious. That does not mean that it is not important. There is a widely held confusion that for something to be of value it should be mysterious. Cheers, Günther -- Günther Greindl Department of Philosophy of Science University of Vienna [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/ Blog: http://dao.complexitystudies.org/ Site: http://www.complexitystudies.org/ Research Proposal: http://www.complexitystudies.org/ph.d.-thesis.html --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Making money via quantum suicide
Welcome. I see that you use the word "intention" several times. It seems that this is the word/notion on which your tries pivot, and I think this is also the downfall. I think that intention is a very good part of reality, but it can find its meaning only when coupled with the humility that we are not in total control, that there is more to everything than scientific repeatability. This realization actually opens up a whole new world of relationships, a more scary world in which we are at the mercy of other persons (and ultimately one good Person), but a more realistic world. Tom On Jun 23, 10:08 am, jal278 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First time post. Would it be possible to use the principles of QS as > an oracle? E.g. buy a lotto ticket before taking a flight, with the > intention > that if you win some improbable amount in the lotto you do not take > the flight. > Perhaps this flight was extremely likely to crash and your odds of > survival are slim. > Would then your observer moment be more likely in the universe where > you win > some improbable amount (odds 1:10,000 maybe) in the lotto? This could > apply > to any potentially dangerous choice you might make. > > Similarly, assuming that QI is true, the survival probabilities at the > end cases (where you > are >150 yrs old) would get to be incredibly small, such that perhaps > healthy decisions > made when you are younger (i.e. never smoke, keep fit) would *greatly* > increase those probabilities > (maybe even to 10^7 or in the range needed to win the lottery). > So, if you have unhealthy habits that you have no intention of > stopping, but bought a lotto > ticket with the intention of never drinking/smoking again if you won > some improbable amount, > it seems that your observer moment might be more likely in the > universe where you win. > > My understanding of QI and the way that observer moments are chosen > may be mistaken, > just an idea I wanted to throw out before I gave the latter a try > (since there is really nothing to lose like > in QS). > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Making money via quantum suicide
On Jun 8, 2:43 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 06 Jun 2008, at 23:35, Tom Caylor wrote: > ... > > One consistent configuration is that we are all immortal and that part > > of this immortal being is something that is outside of what we can > > observe scientifically, including other persons' deaths. > > I am with you. But we can address scientifically the question "does > self-introspecting machine refer correctly to something they can > recognize as being something they cannot observe in a third person > communicable (scientific, objective) way and yet still *know* that > they can make the experience of it (for example through prays, > reflexion, meditation, 1-self-introspection, starvation, accidents, > drugs, or some other (hopefully) genuine 3-self-manipulations, ...)? > > Bruno > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ If the basis of everything is a Person, then this can make my above statement make sense. Can we really have a scientific understanding of a person? This would by definition be one person having a scientific understanding of their relationship to another person. Actually, I think that this is a downfall of many relationships among persons. The scientific understanding requires repeatability. The goal of modern science (which is what we mean by science) is control, which requires repeatability. Love (the mysterious force of good relationship between persons) does not "work" within a scientific framework. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Making money via quantum suicide
Bruno Marchal wrote: > Hi jal278, ... > Similarly, assuming that QI is true, the survival probabilities at the > end cases (where you > are >150 yrs old) would get to be incredibly small, such that perhaps > healthy decisions > made when you are younger (i.e. never smoke, keep fit) would *greatly* > increase those probabilities > (maybe even to 10^7 or in the range needed to win the lottery). > So, if you have unhealthy habits that you have no intention of > stopping, but bought a lotto > ticket with the intention of never drinking/smoking again if you won > some improbable amount, > it seems that your observer moment might be more likely in the > universe where you win. > > > Hmmm... I don't like any "precaution principle", and here you are > advocating a sort of quantum precaution principle. I am not convinced. Interestingly, Everett smoked and otherwise led a very unhealthy lifestyle and died at 52 (in this world). Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Making money via quantum suicide
Hi jal278, Le 23-juin-08, à 19:08, jal278 a écrit : > > First time post. You are welcome. > Would it be possible to use the principles of QS as > an oracle? E.g. buy a lotto ticket before taking a flight, with the > intention > that if you win some improbable amount in the lotto you do not take > the flight. > Perhaps this flight was extremely likely to crash and your odds of > survival are slim. > Would then your observer moment be more likely in the universe where > you win > some improbable amount (odds 1:10,000 maybe) in the lotto? This could > apply > to any potentially dangerous choice you might make. I think you make things a bit complex. Any decisions based on quantum choices will in the long run makes you believe it has helped you to live longer. But with QI this is not even necessary. Nor do I think being very old on branch is something we should wish ... Now, if you want, you could already exploit "quantum superstition" by selling quantum choice devices, here and now, ... to make money ... > > Similarly, assuming that QI is true, the survival probabilities at the > end cases (where you > are >150 yrs old) would get to be incredibly small, such that perhaps > healthy decisions > made when you are younger (i.e. never smoke, keep fit) would *greatly* > increase those probabilities > (maybe even to 10^7 or in the range needed to win the lottery). > So, if you have unhealthy habits that you have no intention of > stopping, but bought a lotto > ticket with the intention of never drinking/smoking again if you won > some improbable amount, > it seems that your observer moment might be more likely in the > universe where you win. Hmmm... I don't like any "precaution principle", and here you are advocating a sort of quantum precaution principle. I am not convinced. > > My understanding of QI and the way that observer moments are chosen > may be mistaken, > just an idea I wanted to throw out before I gave the latter a try > (since there is really nothing to lose like > in QS). The truth is that concerning "immortality" and Observer Moments selection (the recurring thema of this list), there are many open problems, so it is hard and perhaps premature to think about it in term of practical decision. I will say more on first person immortality in a post to Tom Caylor some day (I am still a bit busy). Third person immortality, i.e. "very long life" could make sense only if we forget somehow how long it is, redundancies, etc. ... but feel free to send us your latter try. Bruno > > > On Jun 5, 9:28 am, Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Forgive me if the following comment is ill-thought through as this is >> my first post to the group. >> >> It appears to me that, assuming QS is true, I should bet some >> reasonably substantial amount of cash at the local bookies that I will >> live to 110 or 120 years of age. Of course I will be around to collect >> it given QS. This does assume the bookies is still around to pay for >> it! >> >> Any thoughts/flames appreciated. >> >> Lawrence > > > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Making money via quantum suicide
First time post. Would it be possible to use the principles of QS as an oracle? E.g. buy a lotto ticket before taking a flight, with the intention that if you win some improbable amount in the lotto you do not take the flight. Perhaps this flight was extremely likely to crash and your odds of survival are slim. Would then your observer moment be more likely in the universe where you win some improbable amount (odds 1:10,000 maybe) in the lotto? This could apply to any potentially dangerous choice you might make. Similarly, assuming that QI is true, the survival probabilities at the end cases (where you are >150 yrs old) would get to be incredibly small, such that perhaps healthy decisions made when you are younger (i.e. never smoke, keep fit) would *greatly* increase those probabilities (maybe even to 10^7 or in the range needed to win the lottery). So, if you have unhealthy habits that you have no intention of stopping, but bought a lotto ticket with the intention of never drinking/smoking again if you won some improbable amount, it seems that your observer moment might be more likely in the universe where you win. My understanding of QI and the way that observer moments are chosen may be mistaken, just an idea I wanted to throw out before I gave the latter a try (since there is really nothing to lose like in QS). On Jun 5, 9:28 am, Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Forgive me if the following comment is ill-thought through as this is > my first post to the group. > > It appears to me that, assuming QS is true, I should bet some > reasonably substantial amount of cash at the local bookies that I will > live to 110 or 120 years of age. Of course I will be around to collect > it given QS. This does assume the bookies is still around to pay for > it! > > Any thoughts/flames appreciated. > > Lawrence --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Making money via quantum suicide
On 06 Jun 2008, at 23:35, Tom Caylor wrote: > I guess I could see that it could be consistent that from each of our > perspectives eventually we are the only one left in the mulitverse, if > we were all cut-off from each other, essentially in separate universes > or histories. But with all of the appealing aspects (that have been > brought up in many contexts by many people in history) of an ontology > based on relations rather than substance, I would think that a > multiverse that ends in isolation would be a rather disappointing > (seemingly contrary) conclusion of that ontology. Plus, I certainly > wouldn't want to "live" like that. And I'd even argue that from a > relational ontology perspective that would be equivalent to non- > existence. How about an immortal life in relation to other persons? Immortality itself is different from the third and first person points of view; I cannot tell. It could be that 1-immortality requires some fusion, or merging, of all persons. This makes you "out of time and out of space" at the "moment" before you made up singular personal history. I have to introspect myself more deeply, or study S4Grz and its aritmetical semantics for a much longer time ... You ask a difficult question. But I don't think we separate, such that each of us converge toward solipsistic very long histories, we forget and merge histories too. (all this assuming comp ...) > One consistent configuration is that we are all immortal and that part > of this immortal being is something that is outside of what we can > observe scientifically, including other persons' deaths. I am with you. But we can address scientifically the question "does self-introspecting machine refer correctly to something they can recognize as being something they cannot observe in a third person communicable (scientific, objective) way and yet still *know* that they can make the experience of it (for example through prays, reflexion, meditation, 1-self-introspection, starvation, accidents, drugs, or some other (hopefully) genuine 3-self-manipulations, ...)? 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Making money via quantum suicide
2008/6/7 Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > You don't. You just outlive everyone else in the (very, very tiny, and > shrinking) hyperplane of Hilbert space where quantum randomness has > contrived to save you from death (but not from disability :-( ). On > other very tiny, shrinking hyperplanes you and almost everyone else you > know has died except for one other "lucky" person. In almost all of the > Hilbert space everybody over the age of 120yrs has died. You would expect to survive in the most likely way, even if all the possible ways of survival add up to only a very low measure slice of the multiverse. For example, if you find yourself living to a very advanced age it will more likely be because of some non-bizarre reason such as the discovery of a longevity treatment, with the corollary that there will be others in the same position as you in the same universe. -- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Making money via quantum suicide
Tom Caylor wrote: > I guess I could see that it could be consistent that from each of our > perspectives eventually we are the only one left in the mulitverse, if > we were all cut-off from each other, essentially in separate universes > or histories. But with all of the appealing aspects (that have been > brought up in many contexts by many people in history) of an ontology > based on relations rather than substance, I would think that a > multiverse that ends in isolation would be a rather disappointing > (seemingly contrary) conclusion of that ontology. Plus, I certainly > wouldn't want to "live" like that. And I'd even argue that from a > relational ontology perspective that would be equivalent to non- > existence. I think you'd be right in that. You can imagine surviving thru quantum luck with other persons, even a whole Earth full of people. It's just that the more you imagine adding onto survival simplicipter the less probable that outcome. I suspect there's a lower bound to such probabilities and your luck runs out at some point. But of course in Bruno's ontology based on arithmetic infinities and infinitesimals are possible. > How about an immortal life in relation to other persons? > We don't see any quasi-immortal people (e.g. >150yrs old) so it's very improbable. Brent Meeker > Tom > > On Jun 6, 2:13 pm, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Assuming comp, or quantum immortality, is it true that from my >> perspective I will outlive everyone else, and from your perspective >> you will outlive everyone else? If so, how can this be? >> >> One consistent configuration is that we are all immortal and that part >> of this immortal being is something that is outside of what we can >> observe scientifically, including other persons' deaths. >> >> Tom >> >> On Jun 6, 1:03 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >>> Assuming comp, the reason is that the probability measure on your comp >>> continuations has to be restricted on the comp histories where you >>> survive. Absolute death cannot be a first person experience. death of >>> a 3-person is relative and can be lived from a 1-person perspective. >>> Now, what is 1-person immortality? Very difficult question. The >>> (lobian) machine can make sense, apparently, of a sentence like that: >>> yesterday I have been immortal, but today I am mortal. The difficulty >>> is more in the fusion/amnesia than in the fission ... >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> PS Brent is right. Some annuity contract can be used for making money >>> via comp or quantum suicide, as far as the company handling that >>> annuity is robust enough. (Always making all the default assumptions: >>> obviously (?) science per se is totally agnostic about any first >>> person experience, knowledge ...) >>> >>> On 06 Jun 2008, at 01:44, Tom Caylor wrote: >>> Why is it that from my first person perspective other people die? Perhaps a different question: Why is it that from your first person perspective other people die? Tom On Jun 5, 8:27 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Lawrence, welcome, > > You have to be more precise on the betting procedure. You will win > the > bet against people who, from your personal point of view, will most > probably be dead at the time. How do you intent to recover the money? > > Bruno > > On 05 Jun 2008, at 15:28, Lawrence wrote: > >> Forgive me if the following comment is ill-thought through as this >> is >> my first post to the group. >> >> It appears to me that, assuming QS is true, I should bet some >> reasonably substantial amount of cash at the local bookies that I >> will >> live to 110 or 120 years of age. Of course I will be around to >> collect >> it given QS. This does assume the bookies is still around to pay for >> it! >> >> Any thoughts/flames appreciated. >> >> Lawrence >> > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > >>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/-Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >>> >> - Show quoted text - >> > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Making money via quantum suicide
Tom Caylor wrote: > Assuming comp, or quantum immortality, is it true that from my > perspective I will outlive everyone else, and from your perspective > you will outlive everyone else? If so, how can this be? > You don't. You just outlive everyone else in the (very, very tiny, and shrinking) hyperplane of Hilbert space where quantum randomness has contrived to save you from death (but not from disability :-( ). On other very tiny, shrinking hyperplanes you and almost everyone else you know has died except for one other "lucky" person. In almost all of the Hilbert space everybody over the age of 120yrs has died. > One consistent configuration is that we are all immortal and that part > of this immortal being is something that is outside of what we can > observe scientifically, including other persons' deaths. > QM only implies we are quasi-immortal, in that our measure in the Hilbert space of the universe always has a finite probability of being non-zero though it becomes arbitrarily small. Actually I think even that may be wrong. The theory of quantum gravity may imply that there are smallest units of information (qubits?) that can be physically instantiated and hence there is a smallest non-zero probability and probabilities cannot become arbitrarily small without becoming zero. Comp itself, which suggests the idea of quantum immortality, already assumes that there is no special soul that exists over and above the relations and interactions of neurons or atoms or some objects. It just hypothesizes that it doesn't matter what the objects are; only their relations and interactions. Brent Meeker > Tom > > On Jun 6, 1:03 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Assuming comp, the reason is that the probability measure on your comp >> continuations has to be restricted on the comp histories where you >> survive. Absolute death cannot be a first person experience. death of >> a 3-person is relative and can be lived from a 1-person perspective. >> Now, what is 1-person immortality? Very difficult question. The >> (lobian) machine can make sense, apparently, of a sentence like that: >> yesterday I have been immortal, but today I am mortal. The difficulty >> is more in the fusion/amnesia than in the fission ... >> >> Bruno >> >> PS Brent is right. Some annuity contract can be used for making money >> via comp or quantum suicide, as far as the company handling that >> annuity is robust enough. (Always making all the default assumptions: >> obviously (?) science per se is totally agnostic about any first >> person experience, knowledge ...) >> >> On 06 Jun 2008, at 01:44, Tom Caylor wrote: >> >> >>> Why is it that from my first person perspective other people die? >>> >>> Perhaps a different question: >>> Why is it that from your first person perspective other people die? >>> >>> Tom >>> >>> On Jun 5, 8:27 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Hi Lawrence, welcome, You have to be more precise on the betting procedure. You will win the bet against people who, from your personal point of view, will most probably be dead at the time. How do you intent to recover the money? Bruno On 05 Jun 2008, at 15:28, Lawrence wrote: > Forgive me if the following comment is ill-thought through as this > is > my first post to the group. > > It appears to me that, assuming QS is true, I should bet some > reasonably substantial amount of cash at the local bookies that I > will > live to 110 or 120 years of age. Of course I will be around to > collect > it given QS. This does assume the bookies is still around to pay for > it! > > Any thoughts/flames appreciated. > > Lawrence > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/- Hide quoted text - >> >> > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Making money via quantum suicide
I guess I could see that it could be consistent that from each of our perspectives eventually we are the only one left in the mulitverse, if we were all cut-off from each other, essentially in separate universes or histories. But with all of the appealing aspects (that have been brought up in many contexts by many people in history) of an ontology based on relations rather than substance, I would think that a multiverse that ends in isolation would be a rather disappointing (seemingly contrary) conclusion of that ontology. Plus, I certainly wouldn't want to "live" like that. And I'd even argue that from a relational ontology perspective that would be equivalent to non- existence. How about an immortal life in relation to other persons? Tom On Jun 6, 2:13 pm, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Assuming comp, or quantum immortality, is it true that from my > perspective I will outlive everyone else, and from your perspective > you will outlive everyone else? If so, how can this be? > > One consistent configuration is that we are all immortal and that part > of this immortal being is something that is outside of what we can > observe scientifically, including other persons' deaths. > > Tom > > On Jun 6, 1:03 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Assuming comp, the reason is that the probability measure on your comp > > continuations has to be restricted on the comp histories where you > > survive. Absolute death cannot be a first person experience. death of > > a 3-person is relative and can be lived from a 1-person perspective. > > Now, what is 1-person immortality? Very difficult question. The > > (lobian) machine can make sense, apparently, of a sentence like that: > > yesterday I have been immortal, but today I am mortal. The difficulty > > is more in the fusion/amnesia than in the fission ... > > > Bruno > > > PS Brent is right. Some annuity contract can be used for making money > > via comp or quantum suicide, as far as the company handling that > > annuity is robust enough. (Always making all the default assumptions: > > obviously (?) science per se is totally agnostic about any first > > person experience, knowledge ...) > > > On 06 Jun 2008, at 01:44, Tom Caylor wrote: > > > > Why is it that from my first person perspective other people die? > > > > Perhaps a different question: > > > Why is it that from your first person perspective other people die? > > > > Tom > > > > On Jun 5, 8:27 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Hi Lawrence, welcome, > > > >> You have to be more precise on the betting procedure. You will win > > >> the > > >> bet against people who, from your personal point of view, will most > > >> probably be dead at the time. How do you intent to recover the money? > > > >> Bruno > > > >> On 05 Jun 2008, at 15:28, Lawrence wrote: > > > >>> Forgive me if the following comment is ill-thought through as this > > >>> is > > >>> my first post to the group. > > > >>> It appears to me that, assuming QS is true, I should bet some > > >>> reasonably substantial amount of cash at the local bookies that I > > >>> will > > >>> live to 110 or 120 years of age. Of course I will be around to > > >>> collect > > >>> it given QS. This does assume the bookies is still around to pay for > > >>> it! > > > >>> Any thoughts/flames appreciated. > > > >>> Lawrence > > > >>http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > >http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/-Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Making money via quantum suicide
Assuming comp, or quantum immortality, is it true that from my perspective I will outlive everyone else, and from your perspective you will outlive everyone else? If so, how can this be? One consistent configuration is that we are all immortal and that part of this immortal being is something that is outside of what we can observe scientifically, including other persons' deaths. Tom On Jun 6, 1:03 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Assuming comp, the reason is that the probability measure on your comp > continuations has to be restricted on the comp histories where you > survive. Absolute death cannot be a first person experience. death of > a 3-person is relative and can be lived from a 1-person perspective. > Now, what is 1-person immortality? Very difficult question. The > (lobian) machine can make sense, apparently, of a sentence like that: > yesterday I have been immortal, but today I am mortal. The difficulty > is more in the fusion/amnesia than in the fission ... > > Bruno > > PS Brent is right. Some annuity contract can be used for making money > via comp or quantum suicide, as far as the company handling that > annuity is robust enough. (Always making all the default assumptions: > obviously (?) science per se is totally agnostic about any first > person experience, knowledge ...) > > On 06 Jun 2008, at 01:44, Tom Caylor wrote: > > > Why is it that from my first person perspective other people die? > > > Perhaps a different question: > > Why is it that from your first person perspective other people die? > > > Tom > > > On Jun 5, 8:27 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi Lawrence, welcome, > > >> You have to be more precise on the betting procedure. You will win > >> the > >> bet against people who, from your personal point of view, will most > >> probably be dead at the time. How do you intent to recover the money? > > >> Bruno > > >> On 05 Jun 2008, at 15:28, Lawrence wrote: > > >>> Forgive me if the following comment is ill-thought through as this > >>> is > >>> my first post to the group. > > >>> It appears to me that, assuming QS is true, I should bet some > >>> reasonably substantial amount of cash at the local bookies that I > >>> will > >>> live to 110 or 120 years of age. Of course I will be around to > >>> collect > >>> it given QS. This does assume the bookies is still around to pay for > >>> it! > > >>> Any thoughts/flames appreciated. > > >>> Lawrence > > >>http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/- Hide quoted text - > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Making money via quantum suicide
Assuming comp, the reason is that the probability measure on your comp continuations has to be restricted on the comp histories where you survive. Absolute death cannot be a first person experience. death of a 3-person is relative and can be lived from a 1-person perspective. Now, what is 1-person immortality? Very difficult question. The (lobian) machine can make sense, apparently, of a sentence like that: yesterday I have been immortal, but today I am mortal. The difficulty is more in the fusion/amnesia than in the fission ... Bruno PS Brent is right. Some annuity contract can be used for making money via comp or quantum suicide, as far as the company handling that annuity is robust enough. (Always making all the default assumptions: obviously (?) science per se is totally agnostic about any first person experience, knowledge ...) On 06 Jun 2008, at 01:44, Tom Caylor wrote: > > Why is it that from my first person perspective other people die? > > Perhaps a different question: > Why is it that from your first person perspective other people die? > > Tom > > On Jun 5, 8:27 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi Lawrence, welcome, >> >> You have to be more precise on the betting procedure. You will win >> the >> bet against people who, from your personal point of view, will most >> probably be dead at the time. How do you intent to recover the money? >> >> Bruno >> >> On 05 Jun 2008, at 15:28, Lawrence wrote: >> >> >> >>> Forgive me if the following comment is ill-thought through as this >>> is >>> my first post to the group. >> >>> It appears to me that, assuming QS is true, I should bet some >>> reasonably substantial amount of cash at the local bookies that I >>> will >>> live to 110 or 120 years of age. Of course I will be around to >>> collect >>> it given QS. This does assume the bookies is still around to pay for >>> it! >> >>> Any thoughts/flames appreciated. >> >>> Lawrence >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Making money via quantum suicide
Why is it that from my first person perspective other people die? Perhaps a different question: Why is it that from your first person perspective other people die? Tom On Jun 5, 8:27 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Lawrence, welcome, > > You have to be more precise on the betting procedure. You will win the > bet against people who, from your personal point of view, will most > probably be dead at the time. How do you intent to recover the money? > > Bruno > > On 05 Jun 2008, at 15:28, Lawrence wrote: > > > > > Forgive me if the following comment is ill-thought through as this is > > my first post to the group. > > > It appears to me that, assuming QS is true, I should bet some > > reasonably substantial amount of cash at the local bookies that I will > > live to 110 or 120 years of age. Of course I will be around to collect > > it given QS. This does assume the bookies is still around to pay for > > it! > > > Any thoughts/flames appreciated. > > > Lawrence > > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Making money via quantum suicide
Just buy an annuity that starts paying out when you're 80 (they're cheap). The annuity sellers are essentially betting you wont' live to much beyond that - and they're almost always right. Brent Meeker Bruno Marchal wrote: > Hi Lawrence, welcome, > > You have to be more precise on the betting procedure. You will win the > bet against people who, from your personal point of view, will most > probably be dead at the time. How do you intent to recover the money? > > Bruno > > > On 05 Jun 2008, at 15:28, Lawrence wrote: > >> Forgive me if the following comment is ill-thought through as this is >> my first post to the group. >> >> It appears to me that, assuming QS is true, I should bet some >> reasonably substantial amount of cash at the local bookies that I will >> live to 110 or 120 years of age. Of course I will be around to collect >> it given QS. This does assume the bookies is still around to pay for >> it! >> >> Any thoughts/flames appreciated. >> >> Lawrence > > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Making money via quantum suicide
Hi Lawrence, welcome, You have to be more precise on the betting procedure. You will win the bet against people who, from your personal point of view, will most probably be dead at the time. How do you intent to recover the money? Bruno On 05 Jun 2008, at 15:28, Lawrence wrote: > > Forgive me if the following comment is ill-thought through as this is > my first post to the group. > > It appears to me that, assuming QS is true, I should bet some > reasonably substantial amount of cash at the local bookies that I will > live to 110 or 120 years of age. Of course I will be around to collect > it given QS. This does assume the bookies is still around to pay for > it! > > Any thoughts/flames appreciated. > > Lawrence > > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Making money via quantum suicide
Forgive me if the following comment is ill-thought through as this is my first post to the group. It appears to me that, assuming QS is true, I should bet some reasonably substantial amount of cash at the local bookies that I will live to 110 or 120 years of age. Of course I will be around to collect it given QS. This does assume the bookies is still around to pay for it! Any thoughts/flames appreciated. Lawrence --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
