Re: Quantum accident survivor

From: Russell Standish <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:10:12 +1100 (EST)

Not dualism per se - I'm sure Bruno would argue that he doesn't need
the hypothesis of a concrete universe with physial bodies in it.

However, I think you are correct in suggesting it does depend on an
independence of substrate, which is what Bruno means by COMP -
survivability of first person experience through substitution of the
substrate.

NB even though Bruno calls this hypothesis COMP, it is really more
general than computationalism, in that

computationalism => COMP

but the reverse syllogism is not demonstrated anywhere to my knowledge.

                                        Cheers

Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> 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
>



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
            International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Mon Nov 03 2003 - 18:11:51 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:08 PST