Dear Saibal and Russell,
Does not this entire notion of "quantum immortality" assume some kind of
mind/body dualism in that the mind, consciousness, is independent of the
particular physical circumstances? There must be some way for the Moments,
specifiec in #1, to be "strung together" in a first person way. This is,
IMHO, strongly implied in Marchal's ideas using the UD. Even Barbour's "time
capsules" imply this.
I must confess to a bias toward dualistic models, particularly Vaughan
Pratt's Chu space transform based idea, but this is something that is
implied but does not seem to ever be discussed. Why?
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Saibal Mitra" <smitra.domain.name.hidden>
To: "Russell Standish" <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden>
Cc: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 7:27 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum accident survivor
> I have always found the RSSA rather strange. From the discussion between
> Mallah and Maloney:
>
> http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m1362.html
>
> > > one must first define "you". There are three reasonable
> > > possibilities in the ASSA:
> > > 1. One particular observer-moment. You have no past and no future.
> > > 2. A set of observer moments linked by computation. With this
> > > definition the problem is that "you" may be two (or more) people
> > > at the same time! The advantage with this definition is that one
> > > can predict effective probabilities of what "you" will see at
other
> > > times similar to what you want to do with the RSSA. Thing is, if
> > > there is nonconservation of measure, the predictions start to
differ
> > > from the RSSA about things like how old you should expect to be.
> > > Remember, testable prediction do NOT depend on definitions, so it
is
> > > often better to use def. #1 to prevent such confusion.
> > > 3. A particular implementation of an extended computation. Similar to
> > > 2; allows death, when that implementation ends. I prefer this or
> #1.
>
> #1 seems the most reasonable option to me. You do away with the reference
> class problem. Also it is fully consistent with ''normal'' physics.
>
> Saibal
>
>
>
> ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
> Van: "Russell Standish" <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden>
> Aan: "Saibal Mitra" <smitra.domain.name.hidden>
> CC: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
> Verzonden: Sunday, November 02, 2003 05:45 AM
> Onderwerp: Re: Quantum accident survivor
>
>
> > I disagree. You can only get an effect like this if the RSSA is
> > invalid. You've been on this list long enough to remember the big
> > debates about RSSA vs ASSA. I believe the ASSA is actually contrary to
> > experience - but never mind - in order to get the effect you want you
> > would need an SSA that is neither RSSA nor ASSA, but something *much*
> > weirder.
> >
> > Cheers
snip
Received on Mon Nov 03 2003 - 09:47:36 PST