James Higgo wrote:
>I'm not sure this is a fruitful line of inquiry if nobody can think of any
>reason why there might ever be a cul-de-sac branch. Furthermore, the idea of
>a 'cul-de-sac-branch implies an observer-moment without an observer. I'm
>confident that there is no such thing.
Sometimes ago Russell Standish wrote:
>A reverse causality type of argument would assume that you would never
>enter branches that have no escape routes. I have toyed with this
>idea, but reject it - principally because I have yet to see an example
>of a branch with no escape route, so in essence it becomes
>meaningless, but if there were such brances - my belief in foward
>causality is so strong, I would prefer to question quantum
>immortality, than to invoke reverse causality as a way of salvaging
>QI.
and more recently:
>Its not quite devoid of meaning. Cul de sac branches may have
>observers in the case where reverse causality doesn't apply, and these
>observers really would die ie not experience immortality. Still, there
>is probably little further use of discussion until someone comes up
>with a convincing scenario for a cul-de-sac branch.
Cul-de-sac branches, like zombies, doesn't exist, but are tremendously
important for reasoning, and I'm very glad the notion has popped up.
Ultimately the measure we are searching will be derived from the
elimination of the cul-de-sac branches. I give explanations for that in the
chapter 5.
See the chapter 5 (with the help of the appendice A) in my thesis (cf
URL below).
I'm unfortunately to busy now(°) to say more :-(
Bruno.
(°) ...and probably until the end of september. I apologize in
advance for the shortness of my comments.
Bruno MARCHAL Phone : +32 (0)2 6502711
Universite Libre Fax : +32 (0)2 6502715
de Bruxelles Prive : +32 (0)2 3439666
Avenue F.D. Roosevelt, 50 IRIDIA, CP 194/6
B-1050 BRUSSELS Email : marchal.domain.name.hidden
Belgium URL :
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal
Received on Mon Aug 23 1999 - 07:28:59 PDT