From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 08:57:55 +0100

It is also true to say that 'I have always existed' - there will be some
'prior' universes in which 'I' was 'alive' at any given time. But as usual,
the statement is not very helpful unless you define the observers who will
observe me being alive, picking the right coordinates to view me being

George makes some excellent observations below. Note also that once a
paricular banana diaquiri is created, it is never destroyed - there is
always a 'subsequent' eigenstate in which that diaquiri continues to be.
However, there is no point talking about diaquiries which nobody can drink.
As Hans Moravec pointed out, everything is diaquiries if looked at from the
right perspective.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: GSLevy.domain.name.hidden [SMTP:GSLevy.domain.name.hidden.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 1999 6:13 AM
> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Re: tautology
> In a message dated 99-09-15 16:34:52 EDT, Jacques Mallah writes:
> <<
> BTW, while I'm posting I might as well ask, if you guys are so
> darn sure consciousness is continuous and that it somehow means it cannot
> end, how come you seem to have no problem with birth? It seems to me
> that
> your arguments would apply equally in that direction. How come you have
> no trouble picturing a boundary for it in the past? I'm sure you'll come
> up with some BS answer but this once again shows the foolishness of your
> position. >>
> Congratulations Jacques, this is a great problem to talk about.
> I assert that we can define time as the link between observer frames that
> can
> be sequenced without violating the (physical) laws required for the
> existence
> of consciousness. The Self Sampling condition is the Self which drives the
> Anthropic principle which defines the physical laws. The links between
> observer frames defines the MW as a network that branches as well as
> merges.
> I also assert that consciousness defines the "direction" of the links. In
> other words, it can only exist in one direction which we define as
> "forward,"
> and hence there appear to be an assymetry in the MW network.
> My third assertion (that rest on the self sampling assumption) is that
> once a
> particular consciousness is created, this particular consciousness never
> dies. Note the emphasis on locality. (This assertion resembles the final
> anthropic principle by Barrow and Tipler which is more global in nature:
> "Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the
> Universe
> and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out.")
> This being said, the past is just as uncertain as the future. This can be
> proven by performing an experiment in which the past is recorded and then
> played back. The uncertainty of the recording device reflects the
> uncertainty
> and actual multiplicity of the past(s).
> Regarding the lack of boundaries in the future and in the past, here are
> some
> scenarios:
> 1) Toward the future: as death apparently approaches, events which are
> more
> and more unlikely actually occur to prolong life. (i.e., new drugs
> discovered, aliens landing on earth bringing new life saving technology...
> etc... )
> 2) Toward the past: We are newborn babies with very dim consciousness and
> few
> memories. Birth approaches (going backward in time), we become fetuses,
> and
> embryos... loss of consciousness occurs in most branches. Self Sampling
> ceases to be possible. However, very few "branches" ("merges" in forward
> time) involve states of higher consciousness being degraded to the fetal
> state of low consciousness, that is of being highly conscious before birth
> and then losing memories. Scenarios are difficult to come by and rely on
> science fiction and religious allegories and , so bear with me.... For
> example being just part of a (computer) simulation (Re: Simulacron by
> Daniel
> Galouye of a previous post by Marchal) in which we may assume that this
> erasing of memory process actually happens... or being (sentient) angels
> with
> memories and receiving the body of a newborn, thereby losing our
> memories..................................
> ............Remaining immortal while going backward in time somehow does
> not
> have the same urgency as going forward in time.
> George Levy
Received on Thu Sep 16 1999 - 01:01:46 PDT

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