RE: many worlds theory of immortality

From: Jonathan Colvin <jcolvin.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 22:16:39 -0700

>>Stathis: OK, I agree with your reasoning. But, just for fun, can you
>>think of an example of a physical reality which is clearly a priori
>>contradictory?
>
>Jonathan Colvin: That's a good question. I can think of a chess position
that
>is a-priori illegal. But our macroscopic world is so complex
>it is far from obvious what is allowed and what is forbidden.
>That's why I can't consistently predict what tomorrow's
>lottery numbers will be. So if I could answer your question,
>I'd probably be out buying lottery tickets right now :).

To elaborate, even something as simple as chess rapidly becomes too complex
to answer your question. I can show you a mid-game chess position, and in
general it will be unfeasible (even with all the computers in the world) for
you to answer the question "is this position a-priori contradictory with the
theorem of chess". This is because there at are 10<sup>120 possible chess
games. If it is that hard to answer the question about a system as simple as
chess, it becomes easier to see why it is so hard to answer such a question
about our world.

Jonathan Colvin
Received on Sun Apr 17 2005 - 01:18:15 PDT