Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-27 Thread aet.radal ssg
t I'mtalking about. That's a fully formed idea with absolutely no basis in the objective world that was just put out there like it meant something, when in fact it's ridiculous.I asked simply what he meant by it, to see howpossibly he could defend such a statement, and got nothing. Par for the course, I'

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-27 Thread aet.radal ssg
Forgive any typos... - Original Message - From: Jesse Mazer To: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 20:05:49 -0400 aet.radal ssg wrote: You're assuming that Einstein came up with those ideas through

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-26 Thread aet.radal ssg
- Original Message - From: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 18:36:51 -0400 "aet.radal ssg" wrote:From: "Jesse Mazer" To

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-26 Thread Jesse Mazer
aet.radal ssg wrote: Clearly, the method and definition of brainstorming that you're accustomed to is different than mine. The half-formed idea is what initiates the brainstorm for me, which is fully formed when the storm is over, ie. the ground is parched and in need of rain, the storm comes

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-26 Thread aet.radal ssg
ROTECTED]>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 12:29:13 -0400 aet.radal ssg wrote:Clearly, the method and definition of brainstorming that you're accustomed to is different than mine. The "half-formed ide

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-26 Thread danny mayes
IL PROTECTED], everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 12:29:13 -0400 aet.radal ssg wrote: Clearly, the method and definition of brainstorming that you're accustomed to is different than mine. The "half-formed idea"

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-26 Thread Jesse Mazer
aet.radal ssg wrote: You're assuming that Einstein came up with those ideas through brainstorming. To me, brainstorming just means any creative attempt to come up with new tentative speculations about solutions to a problem. Since Einstein's ideas cannot possibly have been anything but

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-24 Thread Jesse Mazer
aet.radal ssg wrote: From: Jesse Mazer  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality  Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 14:48:17 -0400    Generally, unasked-for attempts at armchair psychology to explain  the motivations of another poster on an internet forum

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-20 Thread aet.radal ssg
From: "Jesse Mazer"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 14:48:17 -0400 Generally, unasked-for attempts at armchair psychology to explain the motivations of another poste

Re: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-18 Thread aet.radal ssg
Dear Saibal: Could you explain the paradox you've created by saying, "In the film Nash was closelyacquainted to persons that *didn't realy exist*." and "One could argue that the persons that Nash was seeing in fact did exist *(inour universe)*, precisely because Nash's brain was simulating them."

Re: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-15 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 14-mai-05, à 07:44, Lee Corbin a écrit : No, it is not just erroneous. I know of many thoughtful people, and include myself as one of them, who believe that the so-called mind body problem is some sort of verbal or linguistic problem. I can agree with that, but then we should solve that

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-15 Thread aet.radal ssg
Why am I not surprised that I disagree with this response?- Original Message - From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 23:25:28 +1000 The obvious and s

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-14 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Lee Corbin writes (replying to Bruno Marchal): I agree the abandoning of vitalism is progress. And it is true that natural science has explained features like self-reproduction, animal motion, energy transformation (sun - living matter) and so on. But it is just erroneous to conclude that the

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-13 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
PROTECTED] To: everything everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 03:11:21 +0200 One could say that the brain of some schizophrenic persons simulate other persons. I don't know if some of you have seen the film 'A Beautiful mind' about

Re: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-13 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 13-mai-05, à 05:39, Lee Corbin a écrit : Brent writes I think that an observer must be physically instantiated - that seems well supported empirically. As it is used a observer moment seems to mean a unit of subjective experience. That there is an observer, i.e. something with

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-13 Thread Lee Corbin
Bruno writes [Lee writes] But many here contend that abstract patterns---mathematical stings, really---can do *so* much cross- referencing and quoting of each other that a form of paste obtains that wields them in to something capable of having experiences. But a familiar abstract

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-12 Thread Jonathan Colvin
Jonathan Colvin writes: That's putting it mildly. I was thinking that it is more likely that a universe tunnels out of a black hole that just randomly happens to contain your precise brain state at that moment, and for all of future eternity. But the majority of these random universes

Re: [Fwd: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality]

2005-05-12 Thread danny mayes
I read "Why Occam's Razor" tonight after posting my last response (despite having a Federal court brief begging for attention). I didn't have time to wade through the technical parts very thoroughly, but in general I found it a very good summary of many of the topics we have been frequently

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-12 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
The obvious and sensible-sounding response to Jeanne's question whether it may be possible to access other universes through dreams or hallucinations is that it is not really any more credible than speculation that people can contact the dead, or have been kidnapped by aliens, or any other of

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-12 Thread John Collins
: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 2:25 PM Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality The obvious and sensible-sounding response to Jeanne's question whether it may be possible to access other

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-12 Thread aet.radal ssg
ith compassion. --Stathis Papaioannou From: "aet.radal ssg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 09:41:27 -0500 -- ___Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
I agree with Stathis' answer to Jeanne. Another one which looks a little bit incompatible with the one by Stathis would be: if QM is correct no information can travel from one universe to another. So such an hallucination can only be such a coincidence or a triviality (whatever I think, there

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-12 Thread Jesse Mazer
entally ill in future you will treat them with compassion. --Stathis Papaioannou From: "aet.radal ssg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 09:4! 1:27 -0500 --

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-12 Thread Russell Standish
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 02:48:17PM -0400, Jesse Mazer wrote: Generally, unasked-for attempts at armchair psychology to explain the motivations of another poster on an internet forum, like the comment that someone just wants to hear themself talk, are justly considered flames and tend to

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-12 Thread Russell Standish
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 08:47:09AM -0500, aet.radal ssg wrote: ??? Could I please request that people post only plain text emails to the everything list, or at very least include a plain text translation? This is a sending option available on all HTML email clients I've come across. It's a real

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-12 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
is to deliberately cause lesions in an experimental animal and observe the resulting effects. --Stathis Papaioannou From: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 14:48:17 -0400 Generally, unasked

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-12 Thread Jesse Mazer
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I doubt that there are many people who have known someone with a mental illness and would claim that there is anything positive about the experience. While sometimes the mentally ill themselves claim that they have a superior insight into reality, that's just because

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-12 Thread Saibal Mitra
n: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]CC: everything-list@eskimo.comVerzonden: Thursday, May 12, 2005 03:25 PMOnderwerp: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality The obvious and sensible-sounding response to Jeanne's question whether it may be possible to access other universes through dreams or hall

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-12 Thread Lee Corbin
Brent writes I think that an observer must be physically instantiated - that seems well supported empirically. As it is used a observer moment seems to mean a unit of subjective experience. That there is an observer, i.e. something with continuity over many such subjective experiences, must

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-12 Thread Brent Meeker
-Original Message- From: Lee Corbin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 3:40 AM To: EverythingList Subject: RE: many worlds theory of immortality Brent writes I think that an observer must be physically instantiated - that seems well supported empirically

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-11 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
that if you do have the opportunity to work with the mentally ill in future you will treat them with compassion. --Stathis Papaioannou From: aet.radal ssg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 09:41:27 -0500

Re: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-11 Thread John Collins
Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le Mardi 10 Mai 2005 19:13, Hal Finney a écrit : And in terms of your question, I would not act as though I expected to be guaranteed a very long life span, because the measure of that universe is so low compared to others where I don't survive. Hal Finney Hi, but

Re: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-11 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Bruno, Le 10-mai-05, à 12:25, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : I should add that I don't believe in QTI, I don't believe that we are guaranteed to experience such outcomes. I prefer the observer-moment concept in which we are more likely to experience observer-moments where we are young and living

Re: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
I agree with you Stathis. That's why I think MWI, QTI and COMPI lead to the Relative SSA, and relative immortality. The SSA you mention is the Absolute SSA which does not make sense, imo. Bruno Le 11-mai-05, à 14:04, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : Bruno, Le 10-mai-05, à 12:25, Stathis Papaioannou

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-11 Thread Brent Meeker
-Original Message- From: John Collins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 10:22 AM To: Quentin Anciaux; everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: many worlds theory of immortality Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le Mardi 10 Mai 2005 19:13, Hal Finney a écrit : And in terms

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-11 Thread Lee Corbin
John Collins had written ..You [Hal] are working from the assumption that each person has some sort of transcendental identity that experiences these observer moments, but I would think it more likely that these would be included in the observer moment, with memories being distinguished from

Re: [Fwd: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality]

2005-05-11 Thread danny mayes
Russell, When I stated in the original reply that pulling information out of other worlds in the MWI context was prohibited by physics, I was referring to information about those universes. As I stated, obviously you can create a superposition to utilize processing power in other universes,

Re: [Fwd: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality]

2005-05-11 Thread Russell Standish
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 12:40:10AM -0400, danny mayes wrote: Russell, When I stated in the original reply that pulling information out of other worlds in the MWI context was prohibited by physics, I was referring to information about those universes. As I stated, obviously you can

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-10 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Hal, I should add that I don't believe in QTI, I don't believe that we are guaranteed to experience such outcomes. I prefer the observer-moment concept in which we are more likely to experience observer-moments where we are young and living within a normal lifespan than ones where we are at a

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-10 Thread Jeanne Houston
don't have it anymore. Jeanne - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 11:19 PM Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Russell, To be fair, I should

Re: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 10-mai-05, à 12:25, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : I should add that I don't believe in QTI, I don't believe that we are guaranteed to experience such outcomes. I prefer the observer-moment concept in which we are more likely to experience observer-moments where we are young and living within

Re: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 10-mai-05, à 05:55, Hal Finney a écrit : I should add that I don't believe in QTI, I don't believe that we are guaranteed to experience such outcomes. I prefer the observer-moment concept in which we are more likely to experience observer-moments where we are young and living within a normal

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-10 Thread aet.radal ssg
objective reality, on. If you do, you really aren't interested in discoveringanything new about objective reality. You really just want to "hear" yourself talk, because nothing else worthwhile is coming from it.Chatter. Just my observation. --Stathis Papaioannou From: "aet.radal ss

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-10 Thread aet.radal ssg
Dear Jeanne: Message - From: "Jeanne Houston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 07:19:01 -0400 I didn't read the article but I am aware of th

[Fwd: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality]

2005-05-10 Thread danny mayes
aet.radal ssg wrote: Dear Jeanne: Message - From: "Jeanne Houston" To: "Stathis Papaioannou" , [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 07:19:01 -0400 I didn't read the article but I am aware of

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-10 Thread Hal Finney
Stathis Papaioannou writes: Hal, I should add that I don't believe in QTI, I don't believe that we are guaranteed to experience such outcomes. I prefer the observer-moment concept in which we are more likely to experience observer-moments where we are young and living within a normal

Re: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-10 Thread Quentin Anciaux
Le Mardi 10 Mai 2005 19:13, Hal Finney a écrit : And in terms of your question, I would not act as though I expected to be guaranteed a very long life span, because the measure of that universe is so low compared to others where I don't survive. Hal Finney Hi, but by definition of what

Re: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-10 Thread Hal Finney
Quentin Anciaux writes: but by definition of what being alive means (or being conscious), which is to experience observer moments, even if the difference of the measure where you have a long life compared to where you don't survive is enormous, you can only experience world where you are

Re: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-10 Thread Quentin Anciaux
Le Mardi 10 Mai 2005 20:14, Hal Finney a écrit : Yet you have already been unconscious forever, before your birth (if we pretend/assume that the universe is infinite in both time directions). It can't be forever... I'm conscious now... so it was not forever. But I know you'll say infinity and

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-10 Thread George Levy
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I happen to be a believer in the observer-moment as fundamental, and the only thing one can be sure of from the first person perspective. "I think, therefore I am" is taking it too far in deducing the existence of an observer; "I think, therefore there is a

Re: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-10 Thread Quentin Anciaux
Le Mardi 10 Mai 2005 20:14, Hal Finney a écrit : And what do you think of life insurance?  Suppose you have young children whom you love dearly, for whom you are the sole support, and who will suffer greatly if you die without insurance?   Do you agree with this ? 1- whenever there is a

Re: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-10 Thread Russell Standish
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 08:55:00PM -0700, Hal Finney wrote: But it's not all that unlikely that someone in the world, unbeknownst to you, has invented a cure; whereas for a universe with your exact mind in it to be created purely de novo is astronomically unlikely. That's the wrong way of

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-10 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
not died out. --Stathis Papaioannou From: Jeanne Houston [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED],everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 07:19:01 -0400 I once read an article in, I

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-10 Thread Russell Standish
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 07:19:01AM -0400, Jeanne Houston wrote: I once read an article in, I believe, Time Magazine, about the relatively new field of neurotheology which investigates what goes on in the brain during ecstatic states, etc. One suggestion that intrigued me was that it may be

Re: [Fwd: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality]

2005-05-10 Thread Russell Standish
The Grover algorithm is a form of accessing information from other worlds. Of course the worlds need to be prepared in just the right way, of course... On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:01:32PM -0400, danny mayes wrote: I'm not one to shy away from what others would perceive to be unbridled

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-09 Thread Jonathan Colvin
Picking up a thread from a little while ago: Jonathan Colvin: That's a good question. I can think of a chess position that is a-priori illegal. But our macroscopic world is so complex it is far from obvious what is allowed and what is forbidden. Jesse Mazer: So what if some chess position is

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-09 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 22:40:46 +1000 snip I don't see how you could get anywhere if you disregard the relationship between observer moments. It is this relationship which allows grouping of different

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-09 Thread John Collins
- From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 2:02 PM Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Dear aet.radal ssg, I think you missed my point about the amnesic and psychotic patients, which

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-09 Thread Stephen Paul King
] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 9:02 AM Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Dear aet.radal ssg, I think you missed my point about the amnesic and psychotic patients, which is not that they are clear thinkers, but that they are conscious despite

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-09 Thread Hal Finney
Jonathan Colvin writes: Pondering on this, it raises an interesting question. Can we differentiate between worlds that are (or appear to be) rule-based, and those that are purely random? The usual approach is that a system which is algorithmically compressible is defined as random. A

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-09 Thread John M
t; [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 10:51 AM Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Dear Stathis, I would like to thank you for pointing this out, even thought it should be obvious to anyone that has any thoughts about consciousness. Any mode

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-09 Thread Jonathan Colvin
I think you meant algorithmically *in*compressible. The relevance was, I was thinking that those universes where we become immortal under MWI are not the conventional rule-based universes such as we appear to live in, but a different class of stochastic random ones (which require very unlikely

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-09 Thread Stephen Paul King
to ANY entity, not justhumans.I amhappy with the possibility of being wrong. Stephen - Original Message - From: John M To: Stephen Paul King ; everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 5:29 PM Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Stephen

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-09 Thread Russell Standish
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 11:02:18PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Dear aet.radal ssg, I think you missed my point about the amnesic and psychotic patients, which is not that they are clear thinkers, but that they are conscious despite a disability which impairs their perception of time.

Re: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-09 Thread Russell Standish
I don't know why you think QTI experienced worlds will be random. They will still be law abiding, but the laws will gradually get more complex, with more exceptions to the rule as time goes on. Cheers On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 04:09:26PM -0700, Jonathan Colvin wrote: I think you meant

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-09 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
:02 PM Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Dear aet.radal ssg, I think you missed my point about the amnesic and psychotic patients, which is not that they are clear thinkers, but that they are conscious despite a disability which impairs their perception of time. Your post raises

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-09 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Did you mean to say a system *not* algorithmically compressible is defined as random? --Stathis Papaioannou Jonathan Colvin writes: Pondering on this, it raises an interesting question. Can we differentiate between worlds that are (or appear to be) rule-based, and those that are purely

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-09 Thread Hal Finney
The usual approach is that a system which is algorithmically compressible is defined as random. A rule-based universe has a short program that determines its evolution, or creates its state. A random universe has no program much smaller than itself which can encode its information. Hal

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-09 Thread Jonathan Colvin
The usual approach is that a system which is algorithmically compressible is defined as random. A rule-based universe has a short program that determines its evolution, or creates its state. A random universe has no program much smaller than itself which can encode its information. Hal

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-09 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Russell, To be fair, I should elaborate on my earlier post about amnesics and psychotics. If I consider the actual cases I have seen, arguably they do have *some* sense of the passage of time. Taking the first example, people with severe Korsakoff Syndrome (due to chronic alcohol abuse) appear

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-09 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
While it is likely that some version of you will end up in a hellishly random universe as a result of QTI, you probably won't stay there very long, since if your particular brain pattern arose randomly, it will probably become disrupted randomly as well. Failing that, you can always kill

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-09 Thread Hal Finney
Jonathan Colvin writes: That's putting it mildly. I was thinking that it is more likely that a universe tunnels out of a black hole that just randomly happens to contain your precise brain state at that moment, and for all of future eternity. But the majority of these random universes will be

Re: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-09 Thread Norman Samish
- From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 8:55 PM Subject: RE: many worlds theory of immortality Jonathan Colvin writes: That's putting it mildly. I was thinking that it is more likely that a universe tunnels out of a black hole that just randomly

Re: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-09 Thread Hal Finney
Norman Samish writes: If the multiverse is truly infinite in space-time, then all possible universes must eventually appear in it, including an infinite number with all 10^80 particles in it identical to those in our universe. Yes, Tegmark calls this the Level I concept of a multiverse.

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-07 Thread aet.radal ssg
- Original Message - From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 22:40:46 +1000 snip I don't see how you could get anywhere if you disregard the relationship between

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-05 Thread Russell Standish
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 10:40:46PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I don't see how you could get anywhere if you disregard the relationship between observer moments. It is this relationship which allows grouping of different observer moments to give the effect of a continuous stream of

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-05 Thread George Levy
I believe that according to some or most participants in this list, transitions between observer moments is representing Time. I have also been talking about observer moments in the past but I have always skirted around the issue of defining them. The concept of observer moment is not clear.

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-05 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 4 May 2005 George Levy wrote: I believe that according to some or most participants in this list, transitions between observer moments is representing Time. I have also been talking about observer moments in the past but I have always skirted around the issue of defining them. The concept

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-04 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 04-mai-05, à 01:53, Russell Standish a écrit : On this list, we seem to have two fairly clear camps: those who identify observer moments as the fundamental concept, and those who regard relationships between observer moments with equal ontological status. OK. As you know I take the relationship

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-04 Thread Russell Standish
Reading your responses here, I don't think we have much to disagree on. Like you, I don't need a concrete universe, with concrete time etc. It was largely your thesis that convinced me of that. Perhaps you confuse me with Schmidhuber too much ! I wouldn't say that time is illusionary. Illusionary

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-04 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 4 May 2005 Russell Standish wrote: On this list, we seem to have two fairly clear camps: those who identify observer moments as the fundamental concept, and those who regard relationships between observer moments with equal ontological status. With my TIME postulate, I say that a conscious

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-04 Thread Hal Finney
I would add another point with regard to observer-moments and continuity: probably there is no unique next or previous relationship among observer-moments. The case of non-unique next observer-moments is uncontroversial, as it relates to the universe splitting predicted by the MWI or the

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-03 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 16-avr.-05, à 02:45, Saibal Mitra a écrit : Both the suicide and copying thought experiments have convinced me that the notion of a conditional probability is fundamentally flawed. It can be defined under ''normal'' circumstances but it will break down precisely when considering copying or

RE: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-03 Thread Ben Goertzel
Saibal, Does your conclusion about conditional probability also apply to complex-valued probabilities a la Youssef? http://physics.bu.edu/~youssef/quantum/quantum_refs.html http://www.goertzel.org/papers/ChaoQM.htm -- Ben Goertzel -Original Message-From: Bruno Marchal

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-03 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
2 weeks ago Saibal Mitra wrote: I don't think that the MW immortality is correct at all! In a certain sense we are immortal, because the enseble of all possible worlds is a fixed static entity. So, you ''always'' find yourselve alive in one state or another. However, you won't experience

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-05-03 Thread Russell Standish
On this list, we seem to have two fairly clear camps: those who identify observer moments as the fundamental concept, and those who regard relationships between observer moments with equal ontological status. With my TIME postulate, I say that a conscious observer necessarily experiences a

Re: many worlds theory of immortality: May only be the Anthropic Principle

2005-04-29 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Lee, Interleaving. - Original Message - From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 11:00 PM Subject: RE: many worlds theory of immortality: May only be the Anthropic Principle Stephen writes you seem to be making a case

Re: many worlds theory of immortality: May only be the Anthropic Principle

2005-04-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Stephen, You wrote: snip ... (I am ignoring my own allergy to the idea that 1st person aspects can be faithfully represented by Turing algorithms.) ... I take the opportunity of that statement to insist on a key point which is admittedly not obvious. The fact is that I am also

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-04-22 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Jesse, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Now, look at p(n) again. This time, let's say it is not k, but a random real number greater than zero, smaller than 1, with k being the mean of the distribution. At first glance, it may appear that not much has changed, since the probabilities will on average

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-04-21 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Jesse Mazer wrote: [Quoting Stathis:] However, let us agree that the scenario you describe occurs in a non-negligible proportion of MW branches in which sentient life survives into the indefinite future, and return to Nick Prince's original question which spawned this thread. How will you

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-04-21 Thread Jesse Mazer
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Jesse Mazer wrote: [Quoting Stathis:] However, let us agree that the scenario you describe occurs in a non-negligible proportion of MW branches in which sentient life survives into the indefinite future, and return to Nick Prince's original question which spawned this

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-04-21 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Jesse, I've deleted everything, it was getting too messy. I hope this (semi-)mathematical formulation captures your argument correctly: Suppose you start with one individual, your friend, on a computer network which has infinite resources and will grow exponentially forever. This individual

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-04-21 Thread Jesse Mazer
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Now, look at p(n) again. This time, let's say it is not k, but a random real number greater than zero, smaller than 1, with k being the mean of the distribution. At first glance, it may appear that not much has changed, since the probabilities will on average be the

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-04-20 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Jesse Mazer writes: [Stathis] There are two separate probabilities to consider here. One is the probability (3/4, as you show) that civilization will never break down if implemented on a computer with behaviour as specified above. The other is the probability that the actual hardware will work

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-04-20 Thread Jesse Mazer
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Jesse Mazer writes: [Stathis] There are two separate probabilities to consider here. One is the probability (3/4, as you show) that civilization will never break down if implemented on a computer with behaviour as specified above. The other is the probability that the

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-04-19 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Jesse Mazer writes: [Stathis] There are two separate probabilities to consider here. One is the probability (3/4, as you show) that civilization will never break down if implemented on a computer with behaviour as specified above. The other is the probability that the actual hardware will work

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-04-19 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Brent Meeker wrote: [Stathis] Your body slowly disintegrates and is (approximately) reconstructed atom by atom, so you don't notice a discontinuity, and it doesn't hurt. If the timing and order of the process were changed, so that your body is destroyed in one operation and a copy reconstructed

Re: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-04-19 Thread John M
@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 12:33 AM Subject: Re: many worlds theory of immortality

RE: many worlds theory of immortality

2005-04-19 Thread Jesse Mazer
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Jesse Mazer writes: [Stathis] There are two separate probabilities to consider here. One is the probability (3/4, as you show) that civilization will never break down if implemented on a computer with behaviour as specified above. The other is the probability that the

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

2005-04-18 Thread Jesse Mazer
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hal Finney) To: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:27:25 -0700 (PDT) Jesse Mazer writes: Would you apply the same logic to copying a mind within a single universe that you would to the splitting of worlds

  1   2   >