Re: zombie wives

From: Jacques M. Mallah <>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:58:27 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Russell Standish wrote:
[Jack wrote]
> > What I am trying to do is to look at the consequences of the
> > claims made by the quantum suicide camp. The claim is that consciousness
> > 'flows into' possible continuations of oneself and is, in effect,
> > conserved as long as such continuations exist. I by no means accept this
> > claim. However I see no reason why you say it would deny the existence of
> > copying machines.
> Because copying machines increase one's measure, but not effective
> probability, which remains normalised.

        I agree with that statement but don't agree that it's consistent
with QS.

> In this copying machine incident, we assume that a person experiencing
> the event has a 50% chance of experiencing being either copy. However,
> each Jane will be fully concsious - there is no diluting of that
> conciousness. An outside observer will be unable to distinguish who
> was the "real Jane".

        Neither would an inside observer. I maintain that the distinction
is meaningless.

[I wrote]
> > If the problem is that QSers may deny that measure is conserved,
> > that problem is not my fault. By their other words it is clear that they
> > believe it is. (You may be included in the group I mean by 'them'.) I am
> > the one using the term correctly.
[this paragraph still applies]

> I still don't see what measure has to do with conciousness!

        That is the problem.

From: Higgo James <>
>We of the 'quantum suicide camp' deny absolutely that consciousness, or
>anything else 'flows'. Flow is a function of time, which is subjective, not
>an objective feature of reality. To say consciousness flows, is like saying
>a program creates the hardware on which it runs, and the programming
>language in which it is written.

        I'd say there's a split in your camp - and you have been on both
sides of it! I don't see how you can say the above but reject the SSA.

>Consciousness is not some special property you can bottle, for God's sake.
>But if I am conscious in this universe, and the next one is virtually
>identical, then I am virtually certain that I will be conscious in that one.

        The above paragraph is incomprehensible, starting with your use of
the letter 'I'. I am not sure what this letter is supposed to signify in
that context.

                         - - - - - - -
              Jacques Mallah (
       Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
            My URL:
Received on Wed Aug 18 1999 - 09:05:21 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST