RE: Quantum Time Travel

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 10:02:19 -0000

You can't commit suicide. That would involve a passage of time from a moment
before the suicide to a moment after it. Such a passage of time is not an
objective feature of reality (although there is a universe with 'you'
pre-suicide, one with a dead 'you' post-suicide, and one with a live 'you'
post-suicide.

And Descartes was plain wrong, too. All we know is 'there is a thought' -
not that there is an I. Why do you have to jump from 'there is a thought' to
the idea that you are an independent 'self' undegoing successive experiences
in time? It's a massive leap, completely wrong, and the source of 90% of the
conundra on this list.

James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: GSLevy.domain.name.hidden [SMTP:GSLevy.domain.name.hidden.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 22 February, 2000 4:49 AM
> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Re: Quantum Time Travel
>
> In a message dated 02/21/2000 2:38:26 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> jqm1584.domain.name.hidden writes:
>
> > This shit's sounding sillier by the second.
> > I'll note, once again, that "quantum suicide" does not *move* you
> > to the surviving branches. Those branches would have existed anyway.
> All
> > it does is kill off what would have been perfectly acceptable copies of
> > you.
>
> I could argue that my version of time travel instead of killing off
> branches
> that would have existed anyway, CREATES new branches where you are not
> there,
> that is creates those branches where your suicide is successful, and
> preserves those branches where your suicide is not successful. This
> argument,
> however, would fall on deaf ears especially if those ears are connected to
> a
> head that believes in an absolute objective reality. No one, however, has
> any
> proof of any objective reality. The only fundamental fact which is
> knowable
> is a purely subjective fact, "I think," as Descartes said.
>
> No matter how you look at it, the whole justification for QS depends on
> the
> assumption that there is no decrease in "measure" as seen by the first
> person, which in turns depends on the renormalization of measure at
> everypoint. Since I do not buy the concept of objective reality, I do not
> believe that measure decreases as seen by the first person, and therefore
> I
> believe that measure is renormalized at every point as seen by the
> observer.
> This is where Jacques and I differ. He believes in an objective and
> absolute
> reality and I believe in a relative and subjective one.
>
> This being said, I am absolutely opposed to QS on moral principles. I
> think
> that is is possible to evolve a morality emergent from a relativistic
> point
> of view of the world.
>
> George Levy
Received on Tue Feb 22 2000 - 02:04:24 PST