Re: Quantum Time Travel

From: Fred Chen <flipsu5.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 02:37:03 -0800

GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:

>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.

Without the objective reality, there is no objective measure, which makes it
impossible to calculate probabilities.


> 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 - 02:40:33 PST