Re: Quantum immortality

> On 19 Sep 2019, at 12:22, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 5:02 AM John Clark > wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 5:54 AM Jason Resch > wrote: > > > This is exactly the break that occurred going from mind-brain

Re: Quantum immortality

> On 17 Sep 2019, at 00:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:53 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > On 16 Sep 2019, at 05:51, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: >> On 9/15/2019 6:13 AM, Bruno Marchal

Re: Quantum immortality

> On 16 Sep 2019, at 14:17, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 8:34 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > With mechanism [...] > > Bruno, I really wish you wouldn't start long paragraphs with those two words > because when you do I don't know if I agree with

Re: Quantum immortality

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 5:02 AM John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 5:54 AM Jason Resch wrote: > > *> This is exactly the break that occurred going from mind-brain identity >> theory to multiple-realizability theories >> (functionalism/computationalism/mechanism). It's the conventional

Re: Quantum immortality

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 5:54 AM Jason Resch wrote: *> This is exactly the break that occurred going from mind-brain identity > theory to multiple-realizability theories > (functionalism/computationalism/mechanism). It's the conventional meaning > implied by mechanism that there's no identity

Re: Quantum immortality

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, 7:18 AM John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 8:34 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > *With mechanism* [...] > > I thought I knew what "mechanism" mente today but quickly realized I was > entirely wrong because immediately after those two words you added "*you > are not

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/18/2019 1:07 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: That means that you certainly cannot become an earlier version of yourself, because that would not be a continuation of your current mental state. If you die, you might continue as a copy that was made at the instant of death, but nothing else

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 18:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 4:06 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 08:37, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:43 PM Telmo Menezes >>> wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 22:56, Bruce Kellett

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 4:06 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 08:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:43 PM Telmo Menezes >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 22:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:53 AM Bruno Marchal

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 08:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:43 PM Telmo Menezes > wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 22:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:53 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> On 16 Sep 2019, at 05:51, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:01:42PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:57 PM Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > The argument of the measure is based on ASSA and that's why it is flawed, > moments are not random sampled from all possible moments, with this > argument and

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/17/2019 10:01 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 05:18:51PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum immortality is true, then we should expect to

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:00:04PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > Another argument that has been given here before is that if

Re: Quantum immortality

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 05:18:51PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: > > > On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum > > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people who > > are

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:25 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 9/17/2019 3:36 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:43 PM Telmo Menezes > wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 22:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 17,

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/17/2019 3:36 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:43 PM Telmo Menezes > wrote: On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 22:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:53 AM Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: On 16 Sep

Re: Quantum immortality

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:43 PM Telmo Menezes wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 22:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:53 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 16 Sep 2019, at 05:51, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > On 9/15/2019

Re: Quantum immortality

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 22:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:53 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 16 Sep 2019, at 05:51, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >> wrote: >>> On 9/15/2019 6:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: And memory is fallible, and memory of age has no more

Re: Quantum immortality

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:53 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 16 Sep 2019, at 05:51, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > On 9/15/2019 6:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > And memory is fallible, and memory of age has no more meaning when your > age is

Re: Quantum immortality

> On 16 Sep 2019, at 05:58, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 9/15/2019 6:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If in H you are multiplied in W and M, but directly killed in M, you survive in W with probability one. That is why we add p or <>t to []p to transform

Re: Quantum immortality

> On 16 Sep 2019, at 05:51, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 9/15/2019 6:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 13 Sep 2019, at 22:28, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9/13/2019 10:59 AM,

Re: Quantum immortality

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 6:18:29 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 8:34 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > *With mechanism* [...] > > > Bruno, I really wish you wouldn't start long paragraphs with those two > words because when you do I don't know if I agree with you

Re: Quantum immortality

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 8:34 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > *With mechanism* [...] Bruno, I really wish you wouldn't start long paragraphs with those two words because when you do I don't know if I agree with you or not. Please be more specific and spell out exactly what assumptions you're starting

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/15/2019 6:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If in H you are multiplied in W and M, but directly killed in M, you survive in W with probability one. That is why we add p or <>t to []p to transform the logic of belief ([]p) into a probability logic ([]p & <>t). Suppose you live a few seconds

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/15/2019 6:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Sep 2019, at 22:28, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 9/13/2019 10:59 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 6:38 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote:

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/15/2019 5:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Sep 2019, at 22:17, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 9/13/2019 4:18 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le ven. 13 sept. 2019 à 13:16, Bruce Kellett > a écrit :

Re: Quantum immortality

> On 13 Sep 2019, at 22:57, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 9/13/2019 3:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 11 Sep 2019, at 16:51, smitra wrote: >>> >>> Back to basics. There exists a universal wavefunction that evolves >>> according to the Schrodinger equation.

Re: Quantum immortality

> On 13 Sep 2019, at 22:28, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 9/13/2019 10:59 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 6:38 PM Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:55 AM Jason Resch >

Re: Quantum immortality

> On 13 Sep 2019, at 22:17, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 9/13/2019 4:18 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> Le ven. 13 sept. 2019 à 13:16, Bruce Kellett > > a écrit : >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:49 PM Bruno Marchal >

Re: Quantum immortality

> On 13 Sep 2019, at 13:53, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:14 AM Quentin Anciaux > wrote: > > > Wel if by "dualist soul" you mean something immaterial about our > > consciousness (like I don't know information) can be duplicated then yes it > > is

Re: Quantum immortality

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 at 14:30, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 9/13/2019 3:12 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 at 06:38, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/13/2019 3:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:28 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: ... I don't have to remember everything that happened over 80yrs to know I'm 80yrs old.  In fact I only need to

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/13/2019 3:12 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 at 06:38, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 9/12/2019 11:59 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 14:49, Bruce Kellett

Re: Quantum immortality

On Friday, September 13, 2019, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 8:25 AM Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:28 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >>> I don't have to remember everything that happened over 80yrs to

Re: Quantum immortality

On 13-09-2019 22:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 9/13/2019 10:12 AM, smitra wrote: On 11-09-2019 19:41, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 00:51, smitra wrote: Back to basics. There exists a universal wavefunction that evolves according to the Schrodinger

Re: Quantum immortality

On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 8:25 AM Jason Resch wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:28 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> I don't have to remember everything that happened over 80yrs to know I'm >> 80yrs old. In fact I only need to remember my

Re: Quantum immortality

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 5:25 PM Jason Resch wrote: > > Without an ever expanding memory, you are limited to experiencing at most > M^2 states, where M is your memory capacity in bits. If M is finite, then > infinite years don't matter, you will begin to revisit previous states. > > Correction:

Re: Quantum immortality

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:28 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 9/13/2019 10:59 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 6:38 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:55 AM Jason Resch wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday,

Re: Quantum immortality

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 at 06:38, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 9/12/2019 11:59 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 14:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> ... >> >> Your RSSA assumption is effectively a dualist model --

Re: Quantum immortality

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 at 03:12, smitra wrote: > On 11-09-2019 19:41, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 00:51, smitra wrote: > > > >> Back to basics. There exists a universal wavefunction that evolves > >> according to the Schrodinger equation. Observers are internal > >>

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/13/2019 3:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Sep 2019, at 16:51, smitra wrote: Back to basics. There exists a universal wavefunction that evolves according to the Schrodinger equation. Observers are internal structures in this description. Whether or not one believes that the Born

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/12/2019 11:59 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 14:49, Bruce Kellett > wrote: ... Your RSSA assumption is effectively a dualist model -- there is only one soul that makes you really you, and that soul goes at random

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/13/2019 10:59 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 6:38 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:55 AM Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Bruce Kellett

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/13/2019 10:12 AM, smitra wrote: On 11-09-2019 19:41, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 00:51, smitra wrote: Back to basics. There exists a universal wavefunction that evolves according to the Schrodinger equation. Observers are internal structures in this description.

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/13/2019 4:18 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le ven. 13 sept. 2019 à 13:16, Bruce Kellett > a écrit : On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:49 PM Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: On 12 Sep 2019, at 01:50, Bruce Kellett

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 6:38 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:55 AM Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>>

Re: Quantum immortality

On 11-09-2019 19:41, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 00:51, smitra wrote: Back to basics. There exists a universal wavefunction that evolves according to the Schrodinger equation. Observers are internal structures in this description. Whether or not one believes that the

Re: Quantum immortality

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:14 AM Quentin Anciaux wrote: > *Wel if by "dualist soul" you mean something immaterial about our > consciousness (like I don't know information) can be duplicated then yes it > is dualist and any computational theory of mind is dualist in this sense > then.* Yes I

Re: Quantum immortality

Le ven. 13 sept. 2019 à 13:21, Bruce Kellett a écrit : > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 9:18 PM Quentin Anciaux > wrote: > >> Le ven. 13 sept. 2019 à 13:16, Bruce Kellett a >> écrit : >> >>> >>> I don't get Mallah's point here, either. I will have to look more >>> clearly at his argument against QS.

Re: Quantum immortality

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 9:18 PM Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Le ven. 13 sept. 2019 à 13:16, Bruce Kellett a > écrit : > >> >> I don't get Mallah's point here, either. I will have to look more clearly >> at his argument against QS. I don't think that case is a clear-cut as for >> QI. The fact that I

Re: Quantum immortality

Le ven. 13 sept. 2019 à 13:16, Bruce Kellett a écrit : > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:49 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 12 Sep 2019, at 01:50, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:55 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 11 Sep 2019, at 01:30, Bruce Kellett >>> wrote: >>> >>> From:

Re: Quantum immortality

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:49 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 12 Sep 2019, at 01:50, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:55 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 11 Sep 2019, at 01:30, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >> From: Bruno Marchal >> >> On 8 Sep 2019, at 13:59, Bruce Kellett wrote:

Re: Quantum immortality

> On 12 Sep 2019, at 01:50, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:55 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > On 11 Sep 2019, at 01:30, Bruce Kellett > wrote: >> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 8 Sep 2019, at

Re: Quantum immortality

> On 11 Sep 2019, at 16:51, smitra wrote: > > Back to basics. There exists a universal wavefunction that evolves according > to the Schrodinger equation. Observers are internal structures in this > description. Whether or not one believes that the Born rule can be derived or > not, what

Re: Quantum immortality

On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 14:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 1:41 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 09:38, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:55 AM Jason Resch >>> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Bruce Kellett

Re: Quantum immortality

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 4:14 PM Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Le ven. 13 sept. 2019 à 08:03, Bruce Kellett a > écrit : > >> >> Yes. QI is possible only in a many-worlds scenario, but that does not >> necessarily mean that any many-worlds scenario implies QI. As you say, most >> of life's significant

Re: Quantum immortality

Le ven. 13 sept. 2019 à 08:03, Bruce Kellett a écrit : > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:07 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> On 9/12/2019 9:49 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 1:41 PM Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> >>> On

Re: Quantum immortality

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:07 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 9/12/2019 9:49 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 1:41 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 09:38, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu,

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/12/2019 9:49 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 1:41 PM Stathis Papaioannou mailto:stath...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 09:38, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:55 AM Jason Resch

Re: Quantum immortality

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 1:41 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 09:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:55 AM Jason Resch wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Bruce Kellett >>> wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via

Re: Quantum immortality

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 09:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:55 AM Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>>

Re: Quantum immortality

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:55 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 11 Sep 2019, at 01:30, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > > On 8 Sep 2019, at 13:59, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > If the only relevance you can find for many worlds is quantum immortality, > then many worlds is indeed dead.

Re: Quantum immortality

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:55 AM Jason Resch wrote: > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >>> On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> > Another

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 5:17 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 9/11/2019 9:52 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/11/2019 9:55 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Why do you think that measure only increases with age? On an objective level it only decreases. There's the crux of the question.  The measure of what, or whom? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/11/2019 9:52 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 9/10/2019 5:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 7:18 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/11/2019 5:08 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 14:01, Bruce Kellett > a écrit : On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:57 PM Quentin Anciaux mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote: The argument of the measure is based on ASSA and that's

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/10/2019 11:25 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 12:00, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote: On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM,

Re: Quantum immortality

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 00:51, smitra wrote: > Back to basics. There exists a universal wavefunction that evolves > according to the Schrodinger equation. Observers are internal structures > in this description. Whether or not one believes that the Born rule can > be derived or not, what matters

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:26 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 12:00, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>> everything-list@googlegroups.com>

Re: Quantum immortality

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum >> >

Re: Quantum immortality

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 9/10/2019 5:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 7:18 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On

Re: Quantum immortality

> On 11 Sep 2019, at 01:30, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 8 Sep 2019, at 13:59, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 8:45 PM Bruno Marchal >> > wrote: >>> On 7 Sep 2019,

Re: Quantum immortality

Back to basics. There exists a universal wavefunction that evolves according to the Schrodinger equation. Observers are internal structures in this description. Whether or not one believes that the Born rule can be derived or not, what matters in practice is that you'll end up having to use

Re: Quantum immortality

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 7:30 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: *> Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people who > are considerably older than the normal life expectancy -- and we do not see > people who are

Re: Quantum immortality

ence" (John Horgan) <https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/everything-list/NJWeGLXI2yw> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/everything-list/NJWeGLXI2yw All the posts *Re*:* Quantum immortality *are under that Topic, There is ontologically no such thing as as a fork

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:08 PM Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 14:01, Bruce Kellett a > écrit : > >> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:57 PM Quentin Anciaux >> wrote: >> >>> The argument of the measure is based on ASSA and that's why it is >>> flawed, moments are not random sampled

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 5:50 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 16:43, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> >> I think the point of quantum immortality is that everyone is immortal -- >> it is not that this is very unlikely because it happens to everyone. So I >> am not sure what

Re: Quantum immortality

Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 14:08, Quentin Anciaux a écrit : > > > Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 14:01, Bruce Kellett a > écrit : > >> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:57 PM Quentin Anciaux >> wrote: >> >>> The argument of the measure is based on ASSA and that's why it is >>> flawed, moments are not random

Re: Quantum immortality

Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 14:01, Bruce Kellett a écrit : > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:57 PM Quentin Anciaux > wrote: > >> The argument of the measure is based on ASSA and that's why it is flawed, >> moments are not random sampled from all possible moments, with this >> argument and without QI, you

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:57 PM Quentin Anciaux wrote: > The argument of the measure is based on ASSA and that's why it is flawed, > moments are not random sampled from all possible moments, with this > argument and without QI, you should have never find yourself young... But > somewhere just

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019, at 07:01, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > *Re: Quantum immortality* > * * > ** > Noting that changing a "Subject" in an emailer does not change the Topic It's not a change of topic, it's a fork :) You can continue the original thre

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 16:43, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:26 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 12:00, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Re: Quantum immortality

> Re: Quantum immortality Noting that changing a "Subject" in an emailer does not change the Topic "The Delusion of Scientific Omniscience" (John Horgan) 66 posts by 12 authors a post is under in Google Groups. @philipthrift -- You received this message bec

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019, at 00:18, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: > > > On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum > > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people > > who are

Re: Quantum immortality

The argument of the measure is based on ASSA and that's why it is flawed, moments are not random sampled from all possible moments, with this argument and without QI, you should have never find yourself young... But somewhere just before your death. Quentin Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 08:43, Bruce

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:26 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 12:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >>> On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> > Another

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 12:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum >> >

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum > > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:51 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 9/10/2019 5:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 7:18 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 9/10/2019

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/10/2019 5:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 7:18 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum >

Re: Quantum immortality

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 7:18 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum > > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people who are considerably older than the normal life expectancy -- and we do not see people who are two or three

Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out

stath...@gmail.com *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:35 PM *Subject:* Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out On 20/05/2010, at 4:12 PM, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: I may have this all wrong, but it seems to me

Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out

-list@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:35 PM *Subject:* Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out On 20/05/2010, at 4:12 PM, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net mailto:marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: I may have this all wrong

Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out

I am afraid you start from the 2nd step: first you accept whatever 'we' (humans) think as an evidence in the system we can absorb and evaluate (explain) and then - *in the framework of that *we imagine our science. Indeed not much more than a belief system of today. Not too different from the so

Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out

of the individual at each moment in time. On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:59 AM, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: - Original Message - *From:* Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:35 PM *Subject:* Re: Quantum Immortality

Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out

Thank you for the responses. Brent Meeker-2 wrote: On 5/23/2010 9:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Alex, hi Quentin, On 20 May 2010, at 15:19, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi, 2010/5/20 awak mustata_a...@yahoo.com mailto:mustata_a...@yahoo.com 1. Hello everyone! I'm Alex. I'm a civil

Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out

On 24 May 2010 01:12, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Stathis, I hate to go into a 'fault-finding' trip, but what gives you the idea that the universe works in any way WE, stupid consequences THINK OF in any fashion? The universe (???) or anything we translate into universes in our

Re: Quantum Immortality considering Passing Out

Stathis, you seemed bored: you jumped into assigning a bit more to my text than it really contained: *...saying that we can know nothing about it at all... * what I did not say. I spoke about a 'hypothetical' functioning of the world (read the* 'imaginingit)* and it refers to how we explain 'it'

  1   2   3   >