On 04 Mar 2010, at 06:44, Rex Allen wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I may be absent for a period, for reason of sciatica.
Best,
Bruno
No worries! I will be a bit delayed on my response anyway. All is
well!
I am back home ...because they
On 02 Mar 2010, at 20:27, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 3/2/2010 10:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2010, at 20:29, Rex Allen wrote:
I don't have a problem with anti-realism about causal laws, since as
you say, my position boils down to consciousness is fundamental and
uncaused.
What does
I may be absent for a period, for reason of sciatica.
Best,
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 everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe
On 3/3/2010 4:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Mar 2010, at 20:27, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 3/2/2010 10:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2010, at 20:29, Rex Allen wrote:
I don't have a problem with anti-realism about causal laws, since as
you say, my position boils down to
I'm sorry to hear that, Bruno. Hope you get well soon!
Charles
On Mar 4, 3:26 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I may be absent for a period, for reason of sciatica.
Best,
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I may be absent for a period, for reason of sciatica.
Best,
Bruno
No worries! I will be a bit delayed on my response anyway. All is well!
Rex
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
On 01 Mar 2010, at 20:29, Rex Allen wrote:
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 01 Mar 2010, at 05:40, Rex Allen wrote:
At most (!) one of those levels is
what really exists - the other levels are just ways that we think
about what really exists or ways
On 3/2/2010 10:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2010, at 20:29, Rex Allen wrote:
I don't have a problem with anti-realism about causal laws, since as
you say, my position boils down to consciousness is fundamental and
uncaused.
What does that explain? I cannot even derive from that if
On 01 Mar 2010, at 05:40, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 28 Feb 2010, at 07:33, Rex Allen wrote:
What would the causal mechanism for natural selection be? A
selection field? Selection particles? Spooky selection at a
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Mar 2010, at 05:40, Rex Allen wrote:
At most (!) one of those levels is
what really exists - the other levels are just ways that we think
about what really exists or ways that things *seem* to us.
The point is that
On 28 February 2010 17:38, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
People believe and do all sorts of crazy things, as I'm sure you know.
The psychological capacity for just about any possible behaviour is
there, but the very maladaptive behaviours are rare. It's not that
it's difficult to
On 28 Feb 2010, at 07:33, Rex Allen wrote:
What would the causal mechanism for natural selection be? A
selection field? Selection particles? Spooky selection at a
distance???
No, it is (mainly) Sex.
Selection by individual seduction. On some level.
Chatting universal chromosomes. On
On 2/27/2010 10:33 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
Note that I am not arguing that this particular belief is an
impossible belief. What I'm arguing is that evolution doesn't help
you one way or the other in
On 2/27/2010 10:38 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Stathis Papaioannou
stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 February 2010 05:33, Rex Allenrexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Is it that peoples' beliefs
could not be other than what
Okay, I think maybe we're getting somewhere!
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 3:37 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 February 2010 17:38, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
People believe and do all sorts of crazy things, as I'm sure you know.
The psychological capacity for
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Feb 2010, at 07:33, Rex Allen wrote:
What would the causal mechanism for natural selection be? A
selection field? Selection particles? Spooky selection at a
distance???
No, it is (mainly) Sex.
Selection
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
I think you have to narrow a concept of explanation; you seem to confine
it to causal physical chain at the most fundamental level. If someone
asked you whether you expected a newly discovered animal species to be one
On 27 February 2010 14:59, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 26 February 2010 16:41, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
Could our universe *actually* produce such a being by applying our
presumably
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 February 2010 14:59, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
People can only have beliefs that supervene onto one of the physical
configurations that it is possible for a human brain to take. What
determines
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 27 February 2010 14:59, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 February 2010 16:41, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
Could our universe *actually* produce
Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 February 2010 14:59, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
People can only have beliefs that supervene onto one of the physical
configurations that it is possible for a human brain to
On 28 February 2010 05:33, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Is it that peoples' beliefs
could not be other than what they actually are given initial
conditions and physical laws? I suppose that is true, but even in a
deterministic single universe
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Stathis Papaioannou
stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 February 2010 05:33, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Is it that peoples' beliefs
could not be other than what they actually are given initial
conditions and
On 26 February 2010 16:41, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
We could, for example, have the belief that we only survive for a day,
and the entity who wakes up in our bed tomorrow is a different person.
We would then use up our resources and plan for the future as if we
only had hours to
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 February 2010 16:41, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
Could our universe *actually* produce such a being by applying our
presumably deterministic laws to any set of initial conditions over
any amount of
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Stathis Papaioannou
stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 February 2010 14:46, Charles charlesrobertgood...@gmail.com wrote:
However, I agree that the statement evolution has programmed us to
think of ourselves as a single individual, etc is rather contentious
as
On Jan 15, 5:15 pm, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Stathis Papaioannou
stath...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no real distinction between the different possibilities you
mention, but evolution has programmed me to think that I am a single
individual
On 25 February 2010 14:46, Charles charlesrobertgood...@gmail.com wrote:
However, I agree that the statement evolution has programmed us to
think of ourselves as a single individual, etc is rather contentious
as an explanation of why we think this way. It seems to imply that
there are many
On 23 January 2010 07:08, Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
Hi Stahis
You brought up the point of personal identity.
When someone goes to sleep they lose consciousness (I am assuming so
anyway - perhaps during deep sleep rather than REM). OK, so some
people say that because they
Hi Stahis
You brought up the point of personal identity.
When someone goes to sleep they lose consciousness (I am assuming so
anyway - perhaps during deep sleep rather than REM). OK, so some
people say that because they wake up again there is always a branch
where they wake up. But suppose
On Jan 16, 1:06 am, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
Evolution doesn't count as an answer since it has to be cashed
out in terms of some more fundamental theory, right?
To answer evolution is dodging the question.
I think evolution is the primary driver of everything, as evolution
2010/1/20 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
What do you think could happen if there were 100 copies of you running
in parallel and 90 were terminated? If you think you would definitely
continue living as one of the 10 remaining copies then to be
consistent you have to accept QTI. If you
2010/1/20 Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk:
If the no clone theorem were a problem then you could not survive more
than a moment, since your brain is constantly undergoing classical
level changes.
How interesting!! I had forgotten that most people believe that
consciousness is a
On 20 Jan 2010, at 11:25, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2010/1/20 Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk:
If the no clone theorem were a problem then you could not survive
more
than a moment, since your brain is constantly undergoing classical
level changes.
How interesting!! I had forgotten
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2010/1/20 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
What do you think could happen if there were 100 copies of you running
in parallel and 90 were terminated? If you think you would definitely
continue living as one of the 10 remaining copies then to be
consistent you
2010/1/21 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
Not necessarily psychological. A materialist theory also includes the idea
of information preservation in material form. In the thought experiment
about copies, it is assumed that the information content of the those
terminated is lost. But
2010/1/19 Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk:
Perhaps you misunderstood my reference to the use of copies. What I
meant was why they are considered as an indication of measure at the
beginning of thought experiments such as the one you discussed (tea/
coffe). Jaques Mallah uses them too
On 18 Jan 2010, at 19:40, Brent Meeker wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Jan 2010, at 09:11, Brent Meeker wrote:
Brent
The reason that there is Something rather than Nothing is that
Nothing is unstable.
-- Frank Wilczek, Nobel Laureate, phyiscs 2004
So, why is Nothing unstable?
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2010/1/19 Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk:
Perhaps you misunderstood my reference to the use of copies. What I
meant was why they are considered as an indication of measure at the
beginning of thought experiments such as the one you discussed (tea/
coffe).
If the no clone theorem were a problem then you could not survive more
than a moment, since your brain is constantly undergoing classical
level changes.
How interesting!! I had forgotten that most people believe that
consciousness is a classical rather than quantum process (Penrose
On Jan 19, 6:43 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2010/1/19 Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk:
Perhaps you misunderstood my reference to the use of copies. What I
meant was why they are considered as an indication of measure at the
beginning
Something vs Nothing?
I played with this so a decade+ ago and found that by simply realizing the
term *NOTHING* we achieved *'something*' so the *nothing* is gone. While,
however, going from *'something'* to the (elusive?) 'nothing', we have to
cut out *EVERYTHING* that may interfere with
Nick Prince wrote:
On Jan 19, 6:43 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2010/1/19 Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk:
Perhaps you misunderstood my reference to the use of copies. What I
meant was why they are considered as an indication of
Are you saying that you do not subscribe to differentiation?
Nick Prince
I'm not sure what you mean by differentiation, but I don't subscribe
to one theory or another - I just consider them. Above I was only
pointing out that there are theories (in fact the most common theory) in
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
So I'm just trying to understand my situation here. To me, my
existence seems quite perplexing. An explanation is in order.
But you never say what would count as an explanation - which makes me
On 17 Jan 2010, at 09:11, Brent Meeker wrote:
Brent
The reason that there is Something rather than Nothing is that
Nothing is unstable.
-- Frank Wilczek, Nobel Laureate, phyiscs 2004
So, why is Nothing unstable?
Because there are so many ways to be something and only one way to
be
On 18 Jan 2010, at 00:37, Rex Allen wrote:
The patterns I've observed don't explain my conscious experience.
There's nothing in my concept of patterns which would explain how it
might give rise to conscious experience.
So I fully buy the idea that patterns (physical or platonic) can be
used
2010/1/18 Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk:
If you had to guess you would say that your present OM is a common
rather than a rare one, because you are more likely to be right.
However, knowledge trumps probability. If you know that your present
OM is common and your successor OM a minute
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Jan 2010, at 09:11, Brent Meeker wrote:
Brent
The reason that there is Something rather than Nothing is that
Nothing is unstable.
-- Frank Wilczek, Nobel Laureate, phyiscs 2004
So, why is Nothing unstable?
Because there are so many ways to be something
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Jan 2010, at 00:37, Rex Allen wrote:
The patterns I've observed don't explain my conscious experience.
There's nothing in my concept of patterns which would explain how it
might give rise to conscious experience.
So I fully buy the idea that patterns (physical or
On Jan 18, 2:11 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/1/18 Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk:
If you had to guess you would say that your present OM is a common
rather than a rare one, because you are more likely to be right.
However, knowledge trumps probability.
Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
It seems to me that you are starting with a strong bias towards matter
as fundamental, instead of starting with a clean slate and working
forward from first principles.
2010/1/17 Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk:
You can see I am struggling with these self sampling assumptions. I
just cannot get a handle on how to think about them.
The SSA is difficult to get one's head around, and sometimes leads to
counterintuitive conclusions. Have you looked up Nick
On Jan 17, 11:51 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/1/17 Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk:
You can see I am struggling with these self sampling assumptions. I
just cannot get a handle on how to think about them.
The SSA is difficult to get one's head around, and
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 3:11 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
Okay, an underlying objective reality causes the order in what we
experience - but then what causes the order in this underlying
objective reality?
You haven't answered any questions...you've just
Rex Allen wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 3:11 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
Okay, an underlying objective reality causes the order in what we
experience - but then what causes the order in this underlying
objective reality?
You haven't answered any
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
What caused it to exist?
Who said it
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Brent Meeker
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
So ultimately, there is no reason you value the things you do...that's
just the way things are.
Suppose there was a reason - what would it be like? And why would it make
any difference whether
Rex Allen wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
So ultimately, there is no reason you value the things you do...that's
just the way things are.
Suppose there was a reason - what would it be like? And why would it
Dear Brent, just a tiny (but fundamental?) question. You wrote (never mind
'on' what):
*One can look at them that way, but ARE they that way?*
**
*the BIG question: are we in any position to identify 'real existence'
(are) vs. our assumptions - what we like to call here 'descriptions'? There
On Jan 15, 6:35 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/1/15 Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk:
1. Do you think dementia a cul de sac branch then (MWI or single
world?
There are branches where your mind gradually fades away to nothing.
However, there are other branches
Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 2:57 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
There is some reality independent of us but which we invent
theories about which refer to some aspects of this reality.
Is this reality deterministic or random?
Random.
What caused it to
John Mikes wrote:
Dear Brent, just a tiny (but fundamental?) question. You wrote (never
mind 'on' what):
/One can look at them that way, but ARE they that way?/
It was Rex who wrote that.
//
/the BIG question: are we in any position to identify 'real
existence' *(are)* vs. our
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
What caused it to exist?
Who said it needs a cause?
Why this reality as opposed to nothing? Given the principle of
sufficient reason, wouldn't nothingness be the expected state of
things?
But,
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:09 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Brent, just a tiny (but fundamental?) question. You wrote (never mind
'on' what):
One can look at them that way, but ARE they that way?
the BIG question: are we in any position to identify 'real existence'
(are)
Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
What caused it to exist?
Who said it needs a cause?
Why this reality as opposed to nothing? Given the principle of
sufficient reason, wouldn't nothingness be
Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:09 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Brent, just a tiny (but fundamental?) question. You wrote (never mind
'on' what):
One can look at them that way, but ARE they that way?
the BIG question: are we in any position to identify 'real
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
It seems to me that you are starting with a strong bias towards matter
as fundamental, instead of starting with a clean slate and working
forward from first principles.
That's because taking
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
What caused it to exist?
Who said it needs a cause?
Why this reality as opposed to nothing? Given the principle of
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2010/1/15 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
Or why not suppose you are your body (including your genes). Then evolution
would be able to have had the imputed effect on you that you suppose it
does.
The actual effect of any adaptive behaviour must be
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2010/1/14 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com:
I agree, there is no subjective difference. But I think there is a logical
difference, if you are only your current OM why go to work when some other
OM will enjoy the fruits of that labor? But by attaching every OM to
2010/1/14 Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk:
Also if QTI is true then my birth OM could be just the consistence
extension of the consciousness of someone who has died. QTI implies
we always have a next observer moment. Somehow this begs the question
as to whether consiousness is conserved
2010/1/15 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com:
I would think the business is operating a scam and possibly report them for
making deceptive claims in advertising. There is no difference between the
economy or first class tickets other than price and so I would go with the
economy level ticket.
On Jan 14, 9:51 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/1/14 Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk:
The ASSA proponents say that even though there are
thousand year old versions of you in the multiverse they are of very
low measure and you are therefore very unlikely to
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:21:34AM -0600, Jason Resch wrote:
If you don't believe they are you, that would imply when you put a pot of
coffee on the stove, you do so out of altruism. Since it only benefits
those future observers who have memory of being you but are not. It's not a
useful
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:22 PM, russell standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:21:34AM -0600, Jason Resch wrote:
If you don't believe they are you, that would imply when you put a pot of
coffee on the stove, you do so out of altruism. Since it only benefits
those
I would say the concept of OM moments is, if taken as more then as a fuzzy
pointer to some now, is an oversimplification (or an overcomplexification,
depends on your viewpoint), so there is no absolute meaning to ASSA/RSSA.
Maybe there is only one observer moment (eternal life of god, I AM) and
2010/1/15 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com:
There's no clear answer. This is where the idea that we live only
transiently is helpful: there is no fact-of-the-matter about who is me
and who isn't since none of them are me, but we can talk about under
what circumstances the illusion of
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2010/1/15 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com:
There's no clear answer. This is where the idea that we live only
transiently is helpful: there is no fact-of-the-matter about who is me
and who isn't since none of them are me, but we can talk about under
what
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Stathis Papaioannou
stath...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no real distinction between the different possibilities you
mention, but evolution has programmed me to think that I am a single
individual travelling in the forward direction through time.
How did
Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Stathis Papaioannou
stath...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no real distinction between the different possibilities you
mention, but evolution has programmed me to think that I am a single
individual travelling in the forward direction through
2010/1/15 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
There is no real distinction between the different possibilities you [Jason
Resch]
mention, but evolution has programmed me to think that I am a single
individual travelling in the forward direction through time. It's
possible to go through
2010/1/15 Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk:
1. Do you think dementia a cul de sac branch then (MWI or single
world?
There are branches where your mind gradually fades away to nothing.
However, there are other branches where you start dementing then
recover, as well as branches where you
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2010/1/15 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
There is no real distinction between the different possibilities you [Jason
Resch]
mention, but evolution has programmed me to think that I am a single
individual travelling in the forward direction through time.
2010/1/15 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
Or why not suppose you are your body (including your genes). Then evolution
would be able to have had the imputed effect on you that you suppose it
does.
The actual effect of any adaptive behaviour must be through the genes,
but evolution could
2010/1/13 Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk:
I’ve read through a good deal of previous posts on the ASSA/RSSA
debate but I keep reaching a stumbling block regarding how successive
observer moments (OM) are to be expected in terms of their
continuity. I think Youness Ayaita queried the same
2010/1/14 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com:
Given the ways ASSA has been defined, I think there are two possible camps
within ASSA. One that believes there is a next moment for you to
experience, chosen randomly from among all, and another which believes there
is no next moment, the observer
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/1/14 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com:
Given the ways ASSA has been defined, I think there are two possible
camps
within ASSA. One that believes there is a next moment for you to
experience, chosen
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
...
The ASSA/RSSA distinction on this list came, as I understand it, from
debate on the validity of the idea of quantum immortality. This is
the theory that in a multiverse you can never die, because at every
juncture where you could die there is always a version of
On Jan 13, 6:21 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
...
The ASSA/RSSA distinction on this list came, as I understand it, from
debate on the validity of the idea of quantum immortality. This is
the theory that in a multiverse you can never die,
Stathis,
I feel both ASSA and RSSA are variations WITHIN human thinking with a
minuscule difference of handling. When I TRY to think about 'everything' I
feel I have to step out from the restrictions of the human 'mind'(?)
capabilities and (at least) imagine to grasp totality (i.e. the
2010/1/14 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com:
I agree, there is no subjective difference. But I think there is a logical
difference, if you are only your current OM why go to work when some other
OM will enjoy the fruits of that labor? But by attaching every OM to the
same observer then there
2010/1/14 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
Is this different from your idea that experiencing Friday only comes after
experinicing Thursday because Friday contains some memory of Thursday?
You seem to be assuming an extrinsic order in the above.
I think it would be the same regardless
94 matches
Mail list logo
