Re: (Quantum) suicide not necessary?

From: James Higgo <>
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 20:56:43 -0000

Your comment, 'an explanation that can explain anything explains nothing.'
is very imporatnt, and many people have said it. It is true of any TOE, as
you say, and implies that _you_ should stop looking for a TOE as you will
always be dissatisfied.

----- Original Message -----
From: Brent Meeker <>
To: James Higgo <>; Michael Rosefield
<>; Saibal Mitra <>;
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: (Quantum) suicide not necessary?

> I checked out your website, but it still seems to me there is a big gap
> between saying all universes with physics that are consistent with the
> WAP are experienced and saying that all thoughts (observer moments)
> exists. In the later case there is no explanation for the seeming
> existence of coherent sequences of thoughts such as 'me', except to say
> that if all thoughts exist then this sequence must exist too. The
> trouble with this is that an explanation that can explain anything
> explains nothing.
> Brent Meeker
> > Before I was blind but now I see.
> >
> > I was the one who came up with the expression, 'Quantum Theory of
> > Immortality', and I now see that it's false - and all this stuff in
> > this thread is based on the same mistake. See , a
> > site dedicated to the idea.
> >
> > There is no 'you'. 'You' don't 'travel'. There are just different
> > observer moments, some including 'I am Micky and I'm, sick'.
> >
> > Even thinking in your passe Newtonian terms, how can a universe in
> > which 'you have a disease' be the same as one in which 'you do not
> > have the disease', just because you don't know it?
> >
> > I see why Jacques gets so irritated by this type of thinking, but it's
> > nice to see him back on the list now & then.
Received on Sun Mar 04 2001 - 01:00:45 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST