From: Saibal Mitra <>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 17:18:07 +0100

  Since conventional physics is sufficient to give (at least in principle) a complete description of the human brain, a partial ordering on the set of all possible observer moments S can be defined as follows:

  First we choose an arbitrary brain B.
  If x1 and x2 are elements of S, then x1 < x2 iff both x1 and x2 can be experienced by B and an initial condition specifying the entire state of the (conventional) universe including that of B exists such that x1 is experienced by B at some time t1 and x2 is experienced at some time t2 and t1 < t2.

  On any totally ordered subset of S one thus also has a definition of time. So, even if one believes that nothing but OM's exists, one can still define useful concepts on S.


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: James Higgo
  To: Saibal Mitra ; Michael Rosefield ;
  Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 7:07 AM
  Subject: Re: QTI

  The point is, 'you' have no 'age'. An observer moment exists, it does not have any temporal attributes _per se_ - although it may contain externally-meaningless concepts such as 'it is 12:45pm'. The statement, 'one OM outlives another' is a category mistake.
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Saibal Mitra
    To: James Higgo ; Michael Rosefield ;
    Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 4:34 PM
    Subject: QTI

    I also don't think that 'Quantum Theory of Immortality' is correct in its conventional form. I do believe, however, that a different version is implied by James' Theory of Observer Moments. Since there exists a set S of observer moments, one element of which represents my state now, I will ''always'' find myself in some subset of S. This doesn't mean that I could outlive everyone. The observer moment: I am 10^1000000 years old is simply inconsistent with I am Saibal.

    I posted earlier about an article by Caticha that explains how fundamental laws of physics (including notions such as time and space) can be derived from nothing more than an arbitrary probability distribution defined over some arbitrary set.


    ----- Original Message -----
      From: James Higgo
      To: Michael Rosefield ; Saibal Mitra ;
      Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 1:53 PM
      Subject: Re: (Quantum) suicide not necessary?

      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.
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Michael Rosefield
        To: Saibal Mitra ;
        Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 3:30 PM
        Subject: Re: (Quantum) suicide not necessary?

        *Phew!*; this afternoon I finally got round to reading the 190-odd messages I have received from this list....
        From: Saibal Mitra
          Instead of the previously discussed suicide experiments to test various
          versions of many-worlds theories, one might consider a different approach.
          By deleting certain sectors of one's memory one should be able to travel
          to different branches of the multiverse. Suppose you are diagnosed with
          a rare disease. You don't have complaints yet, but you will die
          within a year. If you could delete the information that you have this
          particular disease (and also the information that information has
          been deleted), branches in which you don't have the disease
          merge with the branches in which you do have the disease. So with
          very high probability you have travelled to a different branch.
        I don't know whether to be relieved or annoyed that I'm not the only person to think of this ;D.
         I'm guessing this is quite a common idea? Rats, I thought I was so great....
        I _did_ think of the following today, though:
         If you take this sort of thing one step further, an afterlife is inevitable; there will always be systems - however improbable - where the mind lives on. For instance, you could just be the victim of an hallucination, your mind could be downloaded, you could be miraculously cured, and other _much_ more bizzare ones. Since you won't be around to notice the worlds where you did die, they don't count, and you are effectively immortal. Or at least you will perceive yourself to live on, which is the same thing.
        When I thought of it, it seemed startlingly original and clever. Looking at the posts I have from this list, I'm beginning to suspect it's neither.... Anyhow, while this sort of wild thinking is wonderfully pure and cathartic, it never seems to lead anywhere with testable or useful implications. So far, anyway....
        What's the opinion here on which are more fundamental - minds or universes? I'd say they're both definable and hence exist de facto, and that each implies the other.
        Well, I'm new here. Is there anything I should know about this list? Apart from the fact that everyone's so terribly educated.... Feel free to go a bit OT ;).
        Michael Rosefield, Sheffield, England
        "I'm a Solipsist, and I must say I'm surprised there aren't more of us." -- letter to Bertrand Russell
Received on Sun Mar 04 2001 - 08:20:21 PST

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