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

gt; 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 bigger that the nameable or describable number, which happens very soon, >>> relatively, for the immortal being trying to keep track of their

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

ything-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 bigger that the nameable or describable number, which

Re: Quantum immortality

d memory is fallible, and memory of age has no more meaning when your >>> age is bigger that the nameable or describable number, which happens very >>> soon, relatively, for the immortal being trying to keep track of their >>> birthday. >>> >>> Immortal

Re: Quantum immortality

ble number, which happens very >> soon, relatively, for the immortal being trying to keep track of their >> birthday. >> >> Immortality is when you are to old to be able to even name your age. >> After that, you have always the same age. >> >> >> Nic

Re: Quantum immortality

t; argument and without QI, you should have never find yourself young... But > somewhere just before your death. > > > ASSA is not a law of physics. I am not assuming random sampling from anything. > It is just that you spend more time old than young given quantum immortality.

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

Re: Quantum immortality

s 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 hundred years old. Even if the > > prob

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

Re: Quantum immortality

nd memory is fallible, and memory of age has no more meaning when your >> age is bigger that the nameable or describable number, which happens very >> soon, relatively, for the immortal being trying to keep track of their >> birthday. >> >> Immortality is when

Re: Quantum immortality

ger that the nameable or describable number, which happens very soon, relatively, for the immortal being trying to keep track of their birthday. Immortality is when you are to old to be able to even name your age. After that, you have always the same age. Nice aphor

Re: Quantum immortality

rote: > > 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 bigger that the nameable or describable number, which happens very > soon, relatively, for the immortal being trying to keep track of the

Re: Quantum immortality

lible, and memory of age has no more meaning when your >>>> age is bigger that the nameable or describable number, which happens very >>>> soon, relatively, for the immortal being trying to keep track of their >>>> birthday. >>>> >>>> Immort

Re: Quantum immortality

meaning when your > age is bigger that the nameable or describable number, which happens very > soon, relatively, for the immortal being trying to keep track of their > birthday. > > Immortality is when you are to old to be able to even name your age. After > that, you have

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

12, 2019 at 2:55 AM Jason Resch >>> <mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Bruce Kellett >>> <mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everyth

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

rything List mailto: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

Re: Quantum immortality

wrote: If the only relevance you can find for many worlds is quantum immortality, then many worlds is indeed dead. Quantum immortality has been shown many times to be a complete nonsense. Really. I did not known that. Could you

Re: Quantum immortality

you have to assign a measure for observations that is given by >>> the summation of the squared modulus of the states that correspond to those >>> observations. The information about personal identity must then also be >>> extracted from the wavefunction, so one cannot ins

Re: Quantum immortality

ooglegroups.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 people >> > who are considerably ol

Re: Quantum immortality

: >>> On 11 Sep 2019, at 01:30, Bruce Kellett >> <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: >>>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>>>>> On 8 Sep 2019, at 13:59, Bruce Kellett >>>>> <mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.

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

capacity in bits.  If M is finite, then infinite years don't matter, you will begin to revisit previous states. That 2^M. By that kind of reasoning the universe will revisit previous states and there's no meaning to "immortality".  But there's still obvious meaning to living a

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

of the states that correspond to those observations. The information about personal identity must then also be extracted from the wavefunction, so one cannot insert this in an ad hoc way. Quantum immortality is therefore wrong because the measure of the states that correspond to extremely old

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 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 tha

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

n a measure for observations that is > >> given by the summation of the squared modulus of the states that > >> correspond to those observations. The information about personal > >> identity must then also be extracted from the wavefunction, so one > >> c

Re: Quantum immortality

then also be extracted from the wavefunction, so one cannot insert this in an ad hoc way. Quantum immortality is therefore wrong because the measure of the states that correspond to extremely old observers is small. The same reasoning would apply to “quantum suicide”, where it is clear that we

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

hat 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

Re: Quantum immortality

. The information about personal identity must then also be extracted from the wavefunction, so one cannot insert this in an ad hoc way. Quantum immortality is therefore wrong because the measure of the states that correspond to extremely old observers is small. This means that if you don’t know if you

Re: Quantum immortality

ulb.ac.be>> On 8 Sep 2019, at 13:59, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote: If the only relevance you can find for many worlds is quantum immortality, then many worlds is indeed dead.

Re: Quantum immortality

;> 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 people &

Re: Quantum immortality

then also be extracted from the wavefunction, so one cannot insert this in an ad hoc way. Quantum immortality is therefore wrong because the measure of the states that correspond to extremely old observers is small. This means that if you don’t know if you are young or very old and have to guess, you

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

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 inde

Re: Quantum immortality

t; 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. Quantum immortality has been >> shown many times to be a complete nonsense. >> >> >> Rea

Re: Quantum immortality

rc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>>> On 8 Sep 2019, at 13:59, Bruce Kellett >>> <mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> If the only relevance you can find for many worlds is quantum immortality, >>>> then many worlds is indeed dead. Qua

Re: Quantum immortality

then also be extracted from the > wavefunction, so one cannot insert this in an ad hoc way. > > Quantum immortality is therefore wrong because the measure of the states that > correspond to extremely old observers is small. The same reasoning would apply to “quantum suicide”, where it

Re: Quantum immortality

gt; >>>> 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: >>>>> >>>&g

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

ett >>>>> 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, B

Re: Quantum immortality

erything 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

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

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 t

Re: Quantum immortality

;> 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 people >&

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 ma

Re: Quantum immortality

: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

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

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

List mailto: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 people &

Re: Quantum immortality

mpling from anything. It is just that you spend more time old than young given quantum immortality. That is not to say that you are never young -- of course you have to pass through all the years since your birth, one year at a time. It is just that there are more years after any

Re: Quantum immortality

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

Re: Quantum immortality

n also be extracted from the wavefunction, so one > cannot insert this in an ad hoc way. > > Quantum immortality is therefore wrong because the measure of the states > that correspond to extremely old observers is small. This means that if you don’t know if you are young or very old and have to gu

Re: Quantum immortality

t; >>> 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

Re: Quantum immortality

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 hundred years old. Even if the >> > probabilit

Re: Quantum immortality

ps.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 people >> > who are considerably older t

Re: Quantum immortality

above statement. >>>> >>>> Even Zurek, who starts from a many worlds perspective, thinks that >>>> ultimately one can abandon the non-seen worlds as irrelevant. >>> >>> But irrelevant does not mean false. So it is irrelevant in physics, but

Re: Quantum immortality

. Quantum immortality is therefore wrong because the measure of the states that correspond to extremely old observers is small. Saibal -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiv

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 >

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

random sampling from >> anything. It is just that you spend more time old than young given quantum >> immortality. That is not to say that you are never young -- of course you >> have to pass through all the years since your birth, one year at a time. It >> is just that there

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.

Re: Quantum immortality

uming random sampling from >> anything. It is just that you spend more time old than young given quantum >> immortality. That is not to say that you are never young -- of course you >> have to pass through all the years since your birth, one year at a time. It >> is just that

Re: Quantum immortality

rgument and without QI, you should have never find yourself young... But >> somewhere just before your death. >> > > ASSA is not a law of physics. I am not assuming random sampling from > anything. It is just that you spend more time old than young given quantum > immor

Re: Quantum immortality

mewhere just before your death. > ASSA is not a law of physics. I am not assuming random sampling from anything. It is just that you spend more time old than young given quantum immortality. That is not to say that you are never young -- of course you have to pass through all the years since your

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

>> 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 o

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 numb

Re: Quantum immortality

groups.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 people >>>> > who a

Re: Quantum immortality

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 --

Re: Quantum immortality

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 hundred years old. Even if the >> > probabilit

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 e

Re: Quantum immortality

gt; >> >> >> 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

Re: Quantum immortality

t 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 hundred years old. Even if the > probabilities are very low, ther

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 sh

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

Quantum immortality

retation of death, like with quantum immortality. If the only relevance you can find for many worlds is quantum immortality, then many worlds is indeed dead. Quantum immortality has been shown many times to be a complete nonsense. Really. I did not known that. Could you give the references. F

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

finished reading Russel Standish's Theory of Nothing so the following question, concerning Quantum Immortality, has its base in the information found in this book. 3. From what i understand, Functionalism and Computationalism implies that my consciousness

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

  1   2   3   4   5   >